C. Scott Ananian ecmascript at
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>

> From: James Burke [mailto:jrburke at]
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list