C. Scott Ananian
ecmascript at cscott.net
Thu Jun 19 13:42:32 PDT 2014
But why? The benefit of named exports in general is that you get the magic
mutable bindings -- but underscore and glob are mature libraries without
circular dependencies on other code. They would gain exactly nothing from
switching to named exports.
On Jun 19, 2014 4:16 PM, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic at domenicdenicola.com>
> From: James Burke [mailto:jrburke at gmail.com]
> > The argument for allowing both a default and named exports seems
> ill-defined based on data points known so far
> I mean, it seems based on the idea that named exports are super-important,
> and that packages like glob and underscore should use them. I agree that
> it's unclear whether this will occur, but that seems to be the reasoning.
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss