module exports

[John Barton]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Because it doesn't allow for the Assignment Expression form
>>> (specifically, function expressions) that developers expect to be able to
>>> write:
>>>
>>>   export default function() {}
>>>
>>
>> The alternative here is:
>>
>>     function MyThing() {}
>>     export { MyThing as default };
>>
>> Which is more clear, more readable,
>>
>
> I think it's fair to say that these are subjective claims.
>

Indeed, and subjectively I agree with Kevin.


>
>
>> and barely less ergonomic.  If you *really* want the AssignmentExpression
>> form, you've got to put the equals in there.
>>
>
> I don't understand this claim, any legal AssignmentExpression form is
> allowed.
>
>
>> I've said this before, but without the equals it looks too much like a
>> declaration:
>>
>>     export default class C {}
>>     var c = new C(); // No C defined, WTF?
>>
>
> Why is this surprising?
>

It is surprising because it looks like it should work like
  export class C {}
The keyword 'default' looks like a modifier like 'const'.



>
> If a developer knows how named function expression bindings work today,
> this won't be a big surprise.
>

I know how named function expressions work and it's still surprising.

jjb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140314/7225a5a0/attachment-0001.html>