[In Review] 2.6 Updates #1939
[In Review] 2.6 Updates #1939
Conversation
src/v2/guide/render-function.md
Outdated
| @@ -536,6 +536,7 @@ Everything the component needs is passed through `context`, which is an object c | |||
| - `props`: An object of the provided props | |||
| - `children`: An array of the VNode children | |||
| - `slots`: A function returning a slots object | |||
| - `scopedSlots`: (2.6.0+) An object that exposes passed-in scoped slots | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall we add note about this includes slots as functions?
src/v2/guide/syntax.md
Outdated
| <video v-bind:muted.prop="isMuted"> ... </video> | ||
|
|
||
| <!-- shorthand --> | ||
| <video .muted="isMuted"> ... </video> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TBH I think this shorthand somewhat breaks the existing unified syntax of Vue's directives:
v-directive:argument.modifier="value"
Where : is always followed by an argument and . is always followed by a modifier. .muted along may look like a modifier without directive/argument part and might be somewhat confusing if users haven't got to this part of the documentation yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A modifier would only be a modifier if it has something to modify, right? So a standalone modifier doesn't even make sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yyx990803 I agree having a standalone modifier doesn't make sense, but I think @Justineo's point is that in the context of attributes, . has always meant "this is the beginning of a modifier", so even my first thought when seeing this just now was, "Is this a modifier for something implicit or a modifier on the element/component level?" Given the immediate confusion caused by the syntax, even on the core team, and especially given how controversial adding the v-slot shorthand was, I feel like this might merit an RFC of its own. What do you think?
Co-Authored-By: yyx990803 <yyx990803@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: yyx990803 <yyx990803@gmail.com>
|
All 2.6 updates are now covered - would appreciate some review from @chrisvfritz on the revised slots guide (commit) |
src/v2/api/index.md
Outdated
| @@ -2389,6 +2377,40 @@ Used to denote a `<template>` element as a scoped slot, which is replaced by [`s | |||
| - [Dynamic Components](../guide/components.html#Dynamic-Components) | |||
| - [DOM Template Parsing Caveats](../guide/components.html#DOM-Template-Parsing-Caveats) | |||
|
|
|||
| ### slot <sup>replaced</sup> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shall we mark slot and slot-scope as “deprecated”? Since they are still available, unlike scope, which is removed and replaced.
src/v2/guide/components-slots.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| When you want to use data inside a slot, such as in: | ||
| <p class="tip">The `v-slot` syntax is introduced in 2.6.0 and is not supported in older versions. The legacy `slot` and `slot-scope` syntax is still supported in 2.6, and is documented [here](#Legacy-Syntax).</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think maybe it’s better to move this section to the beginning of the v-slot part.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I went through and made some tweaks, but overall it's looking good to me. Like @Justineo though, I was also surprised (and somewhat alarmed) by the new DOM prop shorthand, because:
- It breaks the pattern of shorthands only replacing the directive name, since it replaces a directive name and modifier.
- Since
.usually precedes a modifier, users may wonder if this is some element/component-level modifier (it was my initial thought, before I took in the full context and remembered thatmutedwas a DOM prop of audio elements). - It increases the size and complexity of the Essentials, since the best place to introduce it is probably with the
v-bindshorthand, even though we wouldn't otherwise mention DOM prop bindings there. - It's such a seldomly used feature that when people see the shorthand for the first time, it's extremely likely that they won't be familiar with / remember DOM prop bindings, even if they once read about it.
- I may have missed it, but I didn't see an RFC for this shorthand. If we needed one for the
v-slotshorthand, shouldn't we have this go through an RFC too?
This reverts commit f639b83.
|
@chrisvfritz I've reverted it now in this PR and hidden it behind a flag in core (disabled by default). |
|
@Justineo added clarification for that case. |
|
@yyx990803 Sounds good. 👍 |
No description provided.