Merge pull request #21 from tpetrina/sfc-comment

thanks for the explanation! learned something today.

Author: tsiq-swyx

README.md

@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Please PR or [File an issue](https://github.com/sw-yx/react-typescript-cheatshee
 
 ## Stateless Functional Components
 
-*Contributed by: [@jasanst](https://github.com/sw-yx/react-typescript-cheatsheet/pull/9)*
+*Contributed by: [@jasanst](https://github.com/sw-yx/react-typescript-cheatsheet/pull/9) and [@tpetrina](https://github.com/sw-yx/react-typescript-cheatsheet/pull/21)*
 
 You can specify the type of props as you destructure them:
 
@@ -108,10 +108,22 @@ Or you can use the provided generic type for functional components:
 const App: React.SFC<{ message: string }> = ({ message }) => <div>{message}</div>;
 ```
 
-Quite frankly I prefer the former pattern as it's shorter.
+<details>
+
+<summary><b>Discussion</b></summary>
+
+The former pattern is shorter, so why would people use `React.SFC` at all? If you need to use `children` property inside the function body, in the former case it has to be added explicitly. `SFC<T>` already includes the correctly typed `children` property which then doesn't have to become part of your type.
+
+```tsx
+const Title: React.SFC<{ title: string }> = ({ children, title }) => (
+    <div title={title}>{children}</div>
+);
+```
 
 [Something to add? File an issue](https://github.com/sw-yx/react-typescript-cheatsheet/issues/new).
 
+</details>
+
 ## Stateful Class-based Components
 
 Within Typescript, `React.Component` is a generic type (aka `React.Component<PropType, StateType>`), so you actually want to provide it with prop and (optionally) state types: