ES Modules: suggestions for improvement

BelleveInvis infinte.cdda at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 28 01:10:06 PDT 2012




> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:09:26 -0700
> From: brendan at mozilla.org
> To: infinte.cdda at hotmail.com
> CC: samth at ccs.neu.edu; es-discuss at mozilla.org
> Subject: Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement
> 
> BelleveInvis wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:11:38 -0700
> > > From: brendan at mozilla.org
> > > To: samth at ccs.neu.edu
> > > Subject: Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement
> > > CC: es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > >
> > > Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> > > > But I don't think we should ban people from
> > > > using `import *` because sometimes it's hard to reason about.
> > >
> > > Just to focus on import *, here's where I am:
> > >
> > > I'm in favor of deferring (not to say cutting) import *, in order to
> > get
> > > ES6 modules spec'ed and avoid protracted maybe-good/maybe-bad arguments.
> > >
> > > If someone prototyping or REPL'ing feels the pain, they should wail in
> > > agony. Enough wailing and we'll figure out something for their use case
> > > -- but not on the critical path for ES6.
> > >
> > > /be
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > es-discuss mailing list
> > > es-discuss at mozilla.org
> > > http s://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> >
> > Agree.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> > `import *` is just a variant of `with`
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> /be

Only explicitly exposed members? that will be a lot better. 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20120728/689c2ab8/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list