Support tags with dynamic/variable children

[anp]

In the dom-hacking example, we ensure we can add children in a loop (which also works for a conditional):

moxie/dom/examples/hacking/src/lib.rs

Lines 26 to 39 in dfca4be

	let mut root = div();
	root = root.child(mox! { <div>{% "hello world from moxie! ({})", &count }</div> });
	root = root.child(mox! {
	<button type="button" onclick={move |_| set_count.update(|c| Some(c + 1))}>
	"increment"
	</button>
	});
	for t in &["first", "second", "third"] {
	root = root.child(mox! { <div>{% "{}", t }</div> });
	}
	root.build()

It would be nice to be able to write the whole example as a single mox invocation, maybe something like:

mox! {
    <div>
        <div>{% "hello world from moxie! ({})", &count }</div>
        <button type="button" onclick={move |_| set_count.update(|c| Some(c + 1))}>
            "increment"
        </button>
        |mut root: Div| -> Div {
            for t in &["first", "second", "third"] {
                root = root.child(mox! { <div>{% "{}", t }</div> });
            }
            root
        }
    </div>
}

[zetanumbers]

Maybe we could pass impl Iterator into .child(iter.into_child()). That would allow to implement fragments.

[zetanumbers]

Passing closure would allow to transform for example Div into something completely else. While this is an interesting possibly, closing tag </div> would make confusion. Thus this kind of behaviour should be disallowed, while using mox! macro.

[zetanumbers]

Example from above redone:

mox! {
    <div>
        <div>{% "hello world from moxie! ({})", &count }</div>
        <button type="button" onclick={move |_| set_count.update(|c| Some(c + 1))}>
            "increment"
        </button>
        { ["first", "second", "third"].iter().map(|t| mox! { <div>{ *t }</div> }) }
    </div>
}

[anp]

I hadn't thought of supporting iterators directly, I like that idea a lot.

[anp]

Not sure if that should replace the ability to write your own loop, but maybe it's enough?

[zetanumbers]

Not sure if that should replace the ability to write your own loop, but maybe it's enough?

If you would like to use loops, then use generators.