zenparsing at gmail.com
Tue Jul 1 11:26:01 PDT 2014
> If it had good enough support for circular dependencies, would we be able
> to make sense of "module-as-module" designs?
OK, so let's assume for the sake of argument that "objects-as-modules" is
not confusing, so (4) doesn't apply. All of the arguments for and against
default exports also apply to "module-object-overwriting". As such, we are
balancing the marginal user experience gains of "export-overwriting"
against the better support for circular dependencies of "real" modules.
And we must note that allowing users to overwrite the module-object
eliminates the advantages of statically analyzable exports in those cases.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss