ES6 modules (sorry...)

[Domenic Denicola]

I'm not talking about MIO properties. I'm talking about the bindings created by import declarations.
________________________________
From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt<mailto:samth at cs.indiana.edu>
Sent: ‎2014-‎06-‎16 13:21
To: Domenic Denicola<mailto:domenic at domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: Calvin Metcalf<mailto:calvin.metcalf at gmail.com>; es-discuss Steen<mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>; C. Scott Ananian<mailto:ecmascript at cscott.net>
Subject: RE: ES6 modules (sorry...)


On Jun 16, 2014 1:06 PM, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic at domenicdenicola.com<mailto:domenic at domenicdenicola.com>> wrote:
>
> From: es-discuss <es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org<mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org>> on behalf of C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net<mailto:ecmascript at cscott.net>>
>
> > Using destructuring syntax for imports would be a *good thing*.  It builds on our existing understanding of JS constructs, instead of adding more gratuitously different things to learn.
>
> This would be a very *bad thing*, as long as the current model---where exports are something wildly different from properties of an object, but instead are cross-file `with`-esque read-only-but-mutable bindings---was maintained. It's extremely important that these bindings look and are manipulated as differently as possible from normal declarations and destructuring of object properties.

In fact, module instance object properties behave nothing like with, and are just like an object with a getter but no setter. Just as with any other getter, they don't always return the same answer, but that doesn't make them anything like with.

Perhaps you think JS should get rid of setters and getters, if you think they're like with, but you should just say that if so.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140616/09eb160a/attachment.html>