Rationale for dropping ModuleImport syntax?

[Matthew Robb]

For anyone interested in the transpiler story around the existing spec I
opened an issue here: https://github.com/google/traceur-compiler/issues/1072


- Matthew Robb


On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Caridy,
>
> Please forgive my occasional hyperbole, I think es-discuss is best served
> with a dash of spice now and then.  : )
>
> I agree that the current design is somewhat confusing.  That's because it
> represents a perfectly balanced compromise between the multi-export,
> remote-binding design favored by PL-types, and the single-export design
> favored by developers accustomed to Node.js and AMD.  That duality is
> inherent in the design, and it is critical for its acceptance among all
> parties.
>
> Removing "ModuleImport", in effect, tips that balance away from
> multi-exports and jeopardizes the compromise, and jeopardizes the effort.
>
> The inherent duality and resulting "confusion" should be left to evolution
> to work out.  Supporting both outcomes (or a mixture thereof) is a feature,
> not a bug.  That's my take, anyway.
>
> On the other hand, the lack of "__dirname", etc. was a major hole and
> thank you for addressing it!
>
> Kevin
> ​
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140611/318dc7ad/attachment.html>