I want to avoid commenting on the Ref Sugar RFC about this because it may interfere in the discussion about ref:. I tried to find if the following proposal was discussed before but I couldn't find public discussions about it. Sorry for the noise if this was already analyzed.
Context
In the RFC it is stated that
... we believe ref:'s ergonomics value outweighs the cost by a fair margin. This is also why we are limiting this proposal to ref: only, since ref access is the only problem that requires alternative semantics to solve.
I think that it is on point, but there is also an asymmetry in the usage of props in the template and in the Githubissues.
Githubissues is a development platform for aggregating issues.
I want to avoid commenting on the Ref Sugar RFC about this because it may interfere in the discussion about
ref:. I tried to find if the following proposal was discussed before but I couldn't find public discussions about it. Sorry for the noise if this was already analyzed.Context
In the RFC it is stated that
I think that it is on point, but there is also an asymmetry in the usage of props in the template and in the Githubissues.