Proposal: importing selected chucks of a module into an object

Norbert de Langen Norbert.de.Langen at macaw.nl
Tue May 24 19:20:29 UTC 2016


I think there’s a preference reason for this but also optimization reasons.

For humans it becomes crystal clear exactly what parts are dependent on. I personally like this.

When importing the entire module the module code needs to be run to figure out what parts are not needed. Eliminating the possibility of tree-shaking I believe. 

On 24-05-16 21:06, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Norbert de Langen
><Norbert.de.Langen at macaw.nl> wrote:
>> It would be nice to have this option:
>>
>> ```
>> import { parse } as xmlLib from 'xml-lib';
>> import { parse } as jsonLib from 'json-lib';
>> import { parse } as htmlLib from 'html-lib';
>>
>> // usage
>> xmlLib.parse();
>> jsonLib.parse();
>> htmlLib.parse();
>> ```
>
>This begs the question, tho - why do you only need to import selected
>chunks? If you're pulling in the module as a namespace object, how
>does having the *rest* of the module available harm you?
>
>~TJ



More information about the es-discuss mailing list