Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

[Caridy Patino]

Kevin, although I agree that ES6 modules are well-designed, I don't think
the checkpoint that we did last week was a mistake, in fact, we invited
implementers of the polyfills and transpilers to share their concerns and
questions, to help us to correct course, that's all it was.

Saying that the `moduleImport` syntax was not confusing and we should not
change it is just saying that TC39 is not open for feedback, there is a
clear problem with that, and you can see it in the way people are trying to
use it, (e.g.: http://normalize.github.io/#transformations, check the way
those folks are using the imported module as a function), and believe me,
there are many more people using it wrong, because it is just confusing,
that's all. we see this very often when people are asking questions during
trainings/workshops and opening bugs for the transpilers and polyfills. The
question is, what are we going to do about it?

/caridy


On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

> Everyone just needs to chill out - ES6 modules are well-designed (thanks
> to Sam and Dave and Andreas and maybe myself a little ; )  and they are
> going to work extremely well in the field.
>
> The message needs to be that modules are *done*.  Period.  (Minus some
> minor cosmetic issues, perhaps.)  Opening up this can of worms at the last
> TC39 meeting was a big mistake.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140611/b97493ec/attachment.html>