Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

[Karolis Narkevičius]

(bikeshed: don't leave out this option for the syntax `import module from
"underscore"`)


On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Karolis Narkevičius <karolis.n at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > 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/20140610/2fafe73b/attachment-0001.html>