Domenic Denicola domenic at
Tue Jul 1 11:19:28 PDT 2014

From: es-discuss <es-discuss-bounces at> on behalf of C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at>

> If we're cutting things from the ES6 module spec, can we consider cutting the magical mutable `import {foo} from "./foo";` bindings as well?  Experience has shown that the rare cases where circular dependencies are intended and used can deal with the overhead  of prefixing the module object.

Yes, please. Strong +1. As long as we're in the magical land of theorycraft where we're dropping features of consensus-modules, and completely off the topic of the OP: let's drop mutable bindings, and keep default exports.

>Personally, I would like to introduce mutable bindings as a future language-level feature, not as some weird wart on the module design.

I would rather never introduce them at all. But I agree with the sentiment that having them sneak in through the module syntax backdoor is silly.

More information about the es-discuss mailing list