ES6 modules (sorry...)
matthewwrobb at gmail.com
Mon Jun 16 10:39:04 PDT 2014
I wonder if it would help reduce confusion if the syntax wasn't so similar
import ( foo, bar ) from "library";
> import < foo, bar > from "library";
- Matthew Robb
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> I'm not talking about MIO properties. I'm talking about the bindings
> created by import declarations.
> From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at cs.indiana.edu>
> Sent: 2014-06-16 13:21
> To: Domenic Denicola <domenic at domenicdenicola.com>
> Cc: Calvin Metcalf <calvin.metcalf at gmail.com>; es-discuss Steen
> <es-discuss at mozilla.org>; C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net>
> Subject: RE: ES6 modules (sorry...)
> On Jun 16, 2014 1:06 PM, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic at domenicdenicola.com>
> > From: es-discuss <es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org> on behalf of C. Scott
> Ananian <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.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss