ModuleImport

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.
  --scott
On Jun 19, 2014 4:16 PM, "Domenic Denicola" <domenic at domenicdenicola.com>
wrote:

> 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
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140619/14e19f06/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list