Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

Axel Rauschmayer axel at rauschma.de
Mon Jun 9 07:51:34 PDT 2014

I’m assuming that people will default-export objects (for Underscore.js-like libraries). I’d call those pseudo-modules, because one would be partially working around the module system (no load-time errors!).

Maybe we’ll import modules like this [^1], but that feels syntactically inconsistent to me and you don’t get load-time errors, either:

import "Underscore";
const _ = System.get("Underscore");

[^1]: https://gist.github.com/domenic/2230a7195fa0de31a227

On Jun 9, 2014, at 16:28 , John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:
> On the other hand, we’ll have many pseudo-modules, which is also a barrier against making progress later on.
> Sorry, I don't understand what a pseudo-module is. Are you saying that the core import/export system is not correct and that we should have a system based exclusively on 'module'?
> jjb  

Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
axel at rauschma.de

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140609/8cd004af/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list