Endorse an unambiguous syntax for ES2015 modules

martin heidegger martin.heidegger at gmail.com
Wed Sep 28 22:29:59 UTC 2016


I would like to ask this again, in more depth than on twitter
<https://twitter.com/leichtgewicht/status/773348056775266304> ...

The ES6 module support proposal of Node-eps currently states
<https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps/blob/master/002-es6-modules.md#51-determining-if-source-is-an-es-module>
:


> *Note: While the ES2015 specification does not forbid
> <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/#sec-forbidden-extensions> this
> extension, Node wants to avoid acting as a rogue agent.*
> *Node has a TC39 representative, @bmeck <https://github.com/bmeck>, to
> champion this proposal.*
> *A specification change or at least an official endorsement of this Node
> proposal would be welcomed.**If a resolution is not possible, this
> proposal will fallback to the previous .mjs file extension proposal
> <https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps/blob/5dae5a537c2d56fbaf23aaf2ae9da15e74474021/002-es6-modules.md#51-determining-if-source-is-an-es-module>.*


Unambiguous ES6 module support is imho
<https://github.com/nodejs/node-eps/pull/39#issuecomment-245157827>:

... an embarrassingly simple solution that would fix a major problem by
> creating a little effort for a minority of users and makes everyone's life
> better.


... so: What is the problem for the TC39 to doing the endorse this effort?

best regards
Martin Heidegger

P.S.: I have noted in a write-up of the ES6 module for Node.js integration
that this would be important
http://es2015-node.js.org/#changing-the-es2015-specification
P.P.S.: Thanks to Matthew Phillips
<https://twitter.com/matthewcp/status/773351980068638720> for pointing me
to es-discuss.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160928/ffb8936d/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list