Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

[Karolis Narkevičius]

> These and other options have been discussed on es-discuss over the past 2
or 3 years

But back then there was no real world usage yet? Shouldn't new feedback be
taken into account?


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Forbes Lindesay <forbes at lindesay.co.uk>
wrote:

>  > Please, cosmetic changes only!  : )
>
>
>  Fair enough.  In that spirit, how about we keep the functionality that
> was recently dropped, but fix the strange wording of it (a cosmetic change)
> so that it becomes:
>
>
>  ```js
>
> import 'underscore' as _;
>
> ```
>
>
>  as has been suggested by other people.  It's not ideal, but we then end
> up with three ways of importing a module:
>
>
>  Single default export:
>
>
>  ```js
>
> import mkdirp from 'mkdirp';
>
> ```
>
>  Many named exports:
>
>  ```js
>  import 'underscore' as _;
>  ```
>
>  Individual named exports:
>
>  ```js
>  import {map} from 'underscore';
>  ```
>
>  That is a small cosmetic change (relative to what was the proposal until
> a few days ago) but, I believe, provides all the required functionality.
>  This has already been proposed by others in this thread, and i don't think
> I've seen any meaningful criticism of the idea?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140610/423d9c7d/attachment.html>