Do Anonymous Exports Solve the Backwards Compatibility Problem?
brendan at mozilla.com
Wed Dec 19 20:10:30 PST 2012
In a thread you may not have caught up on, Andreas did argue for a
special form such as
module foo at "foo";
for anonymous import, so that the system can check that "foo" indeed does
export = ...
and throw otherwise. Sorry if you did see this and reply (in which case
I missed the reply!). If not, whaddya think?
David Herman wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Andreas Rossberg<rossberg at google.com> wrote:
>>> Assigning a single exports also nudges people to make small modules
>>> that do one thing.
>> It rather nudges people into exporting an object as a module, instead of writing a real module. The only "benefit" of that is that they lose all static checking.
> I don't think that's fair. It's just an anonymous export. The contents of an export are always dynamic.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
More information about the es-discuss