module exports

[Domenic Denicola]

Importing is nothing like destructuring. You import mutable bindings; you don't do assignment. I'm very glad that different syntax is used for each case.

________________________________
From: Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkmann at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 10:19
To: Kevin Smith
Cc: Domenic Denicola; es-discuss at mozilla.org
Subject: Re: module exports

I understand it's hard to make changes after a certain point. It's too bad though that developers will have to remember that the way to import a few things from a module is:

import {foo, bar} from 'somewhere';

but the way to import the whole module is:

module SomeModule from 'somewhere';

instead of

import SomeModule from 'somewhere';

It just seems so clean to say that if you want to import something, you always use the "import" keyword.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com<mailto:zenparsing at gmail.com>> wrote:
    export { foo as default };

I fail to see why sugar over this form is necessary.

I completely agree. Plus if this is taken away then the "import" keyword can be used to get the whole module as in my example above. At that point maybe there is no need for the "module" keyword.

Maybe, but at this point that would be too big of a change to swallow.  I think if we can just focus on eliminating this one pointless and confusing aspect (the export default [expr] form), we'll be good to go.





--
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140314/ab8c2894/attachment.html>