ES6 modules (sorry...)

Adam Kircher adam.kircher at
Tue Jun 17 17:13:48 PDT 2014

Mutable bindings have valid use cases for object properties as well.  My - very late - vote is for modules to use the same destructuring syntax as objects.  Just leave out mutable bindings in modules for now. That way both modules and objects use the same syntax and that syntax means the same thing in both cases.  Then in ES7+, we introduce the idea of mutable bindings using a new & consistent syntax to both modules and objects.

> (And, just to be clear: I'm not saying that mutable bindings etc don't belong in the spec. They have valid use cases, and for some users this functionality will be very useful. Handling of cyclic dependencies is arguably one of the improvements the spec makes over the status quo. I'm glad the module spec authors have thought hard about the issue and come up with reasonable solutions. But these features should be recognized as corner cases which don't merit gratuitous deviations from standard syntactic forms in the common case.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2556 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list