Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

[Caridy Patino]

My perspective here is that there are not too many modules (in nodejs) that
rely on more than a handful of exports from a particular module, we are
actively working on validating this using esprima in a large set of npm
modules. If this is true, we should be just fine with specific imports, and
for the edge cases, an imperative form should be sufficient.

For now, I will ask you all to try to find a modules that are using too
many exported methods from one of its imported modules, you will be suprise
how hard it is too find those.

/caridy


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <axel at rauschma.de> wrote:

> As an aside, it is yet to be seen whether the "default" export thing is
> the best way, or the bad part itself.  We don't have the real world
> experience yet to answer that.
>
>
> I’d even argue that they led to the predicament that we are currently in.
>
> If the default export didn’t look like “the module”, things would, in my
> opinion, be easier to understand:
>
> ```js
> import _ from "Underscore";
> import { flatten, union } from "Underscore";
> import default someFunction from "single_function_module";
> ```
>
> --
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> axel at rauschma.de
> rauschma.de
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140609/14aea81e/attachment.html>