Single import from modules without default export
gundersen at gmail.com
Wed Aug 6 04:56:11 PDT 2014
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
>> * The name of the imported binding is decided by the user of the module,
>> not the author
>> * The user of the module does not need to know the name of the exported
>> binding, set by the author of the module.
> If you seriously want to make these claims, you need to respond to
> http://esdiscuss.org/topic/quantifying-default-exports .
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I'm merely stating that using
`import a from "module"` lets the user of the module decide on the name
without needing to know what the author of the imported module named it. I
remember you made the claim that:
> This argument is unsound, since the user always has to know the API of the
> source module before use, regardless of whether or not default exports are
But there is still the advantage that the user of the module can name it
whatever they want with fewer keystrokes.
>> I therefore want to propose that the default keyword is removed, that
>> only named bindings are allowed when exporting in a module, and that method
>> A imports the first named binding.
> That would mean that simply moving a function definition around within a
> module would break clients. Ouch!
Yes, but only if you swap around the first export with something else. Not
sure how large of a problem this is though.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss