Change to #[styled] #[function_component]

[kirillsemyonkin]

Change #[styled_component] to no longer be a #[function_component] wrapper, and to become a simple function body modifier #[styled] instead.

Breaking changes; low or medium priority. Discussion is not required, PRs can be done either by stylist devs, me, or someone else in the community.

Description

As yew-autoprops 0.4 released, we have been greeted with the following syntax:

#[autoprops]
#[function_component]
pub fn AutopropsComponent() -> Html { ... }

Autoprops only touches props and the function body (to add some implicit clones in front). Assuming #[styled_component] also only slightly modifies the component body, it appears to be changeable to use the same model (becoming #[styled]) with still being able to be compatible with autoprops in either of those two configurations:

#[autoprops]
#[styled]
#[function_component]
pub fn StyledComponent1() -> Html { ... }

#[styled]
#[autoprops]
#[function_component]
pub fn StyledComponent2() -> Html { ... }

Note

With yew #3347, the whole chain will look like #[styled] #[autoprops] #[component] or #[autoprops] #[styled] #[component].

Benefits

• Shows great future for composability of such procedural macros.
• Will give #[styled] to have an easy way to write down some custom options for it (if that will ever be needed).
• Consistency with #[autoprops] - this one is fully up to stylist to decide, its just a bonus lol
• Changes are independent of Yew's slow development cycle, and can be implemented with a subsequent release at any point.
• Will get rid of the need to fix up stylist upon yew #3347, since it will no longer contain references to #[function_component] in its code.

Drawbacks

• Extra ] #[function for the users.
• Generating #[function_component] ensured that the result will make a yew-compatible code. If stylist uses hooks in the generated body, it will have no proper way to check whether user used #[function_component], which may lead to a non-user-friendly error.

Alternative

Leave only autoprops supporting this. Following syntax should already work now:

#[autoprops]
#[styled_component]
pub fn StyledComponent() -> Html { ... }

Warning

Mind that yew #3347 will require a stylist change to use #[::yew::functional::component] or something similar.

[kirillsemyonkin]

As was mentioned to me over Discord, this PR combines #[styled_component_impl] and #[styled_component] into #[styled]. Possibly, just rename #[styled_component_impl] then, but still beware of that #[component] Yew PR breaking #[styled_component].

Following is also possible: use stylist::yew::styled_component_impl as styled;, I'm just pointing out some of the benefits of properly supporting this.

[futursolo]

Thank you for the proposal.

The reason why I brought up that #[autoprops] cannot be used to enforce #[function_component] is because that I feel #[autoprops] #[styled_component] is a more natural way to use stylist with #[autoprops].
Subjecting users to use 3 attributes for a component definition and all of them required to be arranged in a specific order is simply not a good user experience.

I would like to reserve the name styled for a macro that can mimic styled-component(JavaScript library)-like styled usage. So I am not in favour of renaming styled_component_impl to styled.

However, I am fine with a different name for styled_component_impl if anyone is able to come up with a better name.

In addition, changing #[function_component] to #[component] is not a breaking change. #[function_component] will continue to work for the next Yew release. Making #[styled_component] to use #[component] internally is not a breaking change as well.

I am not a fan of the current autoprops syntax in general and is fine with stylist not making any accommodations to it if it simply works as-is.

Discussion is not required

Since you said this, I am going to make this as the final decision and will not discuss this any further.

[kirillsemyonkin]

and all of them required to be arranged in a specific order

Gotta point out, only the #[component] would need to be last

styled-component(JavaScript library)

I've only heard negative opinions on that JS library, meanwhile stylist is at least as good as tailwind, about which I heard only positive opinions and it is getting very popular

However, I am fine with a different name for styled_component_impl if anyone is able to come up with a better name.

I can only think of #[with_style] currently

In addition, changing #[function_component] to #[component] is not a breaking change. #[function_component] will continue to work for the next Yew release. Making #[styled_component] to use #[component] internally is not a breaking change as well.

Only if Yew officially has pub use component as function_component; in that PR. By it requiring changes I meant that if Yew will only rename and not keep old one, you will have a broken styled_component

Since you said this, I am going to make this as the final decision and will not discuss this any further.

Thats not what I meant, I meant that if discussion happens, it happens, if not, PRs would suffice, but OK lol

I will stand by my opinion, and keep using use stylist::yew::styled_component_impl as styled; (if I myself ever will need it, I personally only use use_style!).