From 64f9bff41dbfba00b6c33bfb7c3ca0ebb53af7ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Brian Vaughn Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:00:15 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Grammar nit --- content/blog/2018-06-07-you-probably-dont-need-derived-state.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/content/blog/2018-06-07-you-probably-dont-need-derived-state.md b/content/blog/2018-06-07-you-probably-dont-need-derived-state.md index c54fff96..ee830049 100644 --- a/content/blog/2018-06-07-you-probably-dont-need-derived-state.md +++ b/content/blog/2018-06-07-you-probably-dont-need-derived-state.md @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ At first, this component might look okay. State is initialized to the value spec We could use `shouldComponentUpdate` to ensure that our component did not re-render unless props changed. This would fix the simple component showed above. However in practice, components usually accept multiple props, and our component would re-render if any one of them changed— not just email. -Another thing to to keep in mind is function or object props are often created inline and so will always bypass `shouldComponentUpdate`. For example, what if our component accepted a function to validate the current email address? +Another thing to to keep in mind is that function and object props are often created inline and so will always bypass `shouldComponentUpdate`. For example, what if our component accepted a function to validate the current email address? ```js