Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

Matthew Robb matthewwrobb at gmail.com
Mon Jun 9 09:50:10 PDT 2014

Gah.. Phone. Side-effects*
On Jun 9, 2014 9:47 AM, matthewwrobb at gmail.com wrote:

And the as portion can be optional if all you want is import dude effects.
On Jun 9, 2014 9:42 AM, "Caridy Patino" <caridy at gmail.com> wrote:

`import "./foo" as foo;` certainly looks nice.

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

> IIUC, the motivation for dropping the form is that it's confusing to have
> this other syntactic option which uses a different (contextual) keyword.
> Well, we already have this:
>     import "./foo";
> which you can use when you want to load+execute but not import anything.
>  Is that going away?  If not, then it makes sense to just add a renaming
> clause:
>     import "./foo" as foo;
> Does that help with the confusion?

es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140609/c783910f/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list