Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?
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
> 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...
More information about the es-discuss