[docs] Better definition of what withStyles is #9235
Conversation
| @@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ We think that it's the future: | |||
| - [The future of component-based styling](https://medium.freecodecamp.com/css-in-javascript-the-future-of-component-based-styling-70b161a79a32) | |||
|
|
|||
| So, you may have noticed in the demos how this *CSS-in-JS* looks. | |||
| We use the [`withStyles`](#api) | |||
| higher-order component to inject an array of styles into the DOM as CSS, using JSS. Here's an example: | |||
| We use the higher-order component created by [`withStyles`](#api) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
withStyles is the higher order component. I don't think this change is correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I retract my earlier comment, I think this change is correct. withStyles is not an HOC, it's simply a function which takes a styles object and returns an HOC, which takes a component and returns a component.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pelotom What about the second half of that sentence? (See the end of my #9226 (comment))
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mbrookes you mean this part?
Would it be more correct to say that the resulting enhanced component injects the CSS? (At what point is the CSS actually injected?)
Since they're all related it would be good pick them up in the associated PR.
I might say something like
Calling
withStyles(styles)produces a higher-order component--that is, a function which takes a component and produces a new, enhanced component. The enhancement in this case is to inject class names for the givenstylesinto the props of the component it is applied to.
oliviertassinari
changed the title
|
No activity for 15 days. I think this change is going in the right direction. I'm going to merge @Ajay2507 pull-request. Thank you. @rosskevin, @pelotom you are free to keep iterating on the topic :). |
|
@oliviertassinari It was on hold because changing it in this one place makes it inconsistent with the rest of the docs and code comments: #9226 (comment) Should we reopen that issue, or open a new one? |
|
@oliviertassinari I'll have to re-read the relevents docs with that in mind. I hadn't considered it. |
Closes #9226.