JSX Implicit fragment not being created in some JSX situations

[nicholaides]

Input:

<node>
> if cond
  <sibling>

Actual Output:

<node />
> (cond?
  <sibling />:void 0)

Expected Output:

<>
  <node />
  { (cond?
    <sibling />:void 0)}
</>

Workaround: Wrap it in a fragment manually

<>
  <node>
  > if cond
    <sibling>

This doesn't just happen in a top-level context, either. This will also trigger the same behavior:

<parent>
  > if parentCond
    <node>
    > if cond
      <sibling>

[nicholaides]

Also, I just noticed that this fails with a parse error:

<node>
>if cond
  <sibling>

Seems likely to be related to this bug.

[edemaine]

This looks like expected behavior to me. JSX children are supposed to be strictly indented, and none of your examples are indented (the > is at the same level as the JSX before it).

Are you proposing that > foo be treated as indented farther than the >? That would seem a bit weird to me...

[edemaine]

Ohh, now I see - you wanted the second element to be a sibling. Right, we should probably create an implicit fragment in that case, though it's a bit ambiguous. Comparing a JSX node with > seems unlikely to be that useful, though it could be, depending on the JSX implementation. But probably reasonable to require that the tag be wrapped in parentheses for it to be compared.

Related, these also don't get an automatic fragment, but it's less clear whether they should:

<div>
some text

<div>
{value}

Given the last in particular, I'm a little unclear whether > should work...

[nicholaides]

Comparing a JSX node with > seems unlikely to be that useful

Yeah, in my opinion, "code children" syntax should take precedence over comparing JSX nodes with > if implicit fragments is going to be a feature.

[nicholaides]

In those examples (<div>;some text and <div>;{value}), not wrapping in an implicit fragment only makes sense if <div /> has a side effect.

It seems like Civet's "code children" feature (if not all of it's JSX support) assumes that JSX tags don't have side effects.