On Jun 27, 2012, at 10:58 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > The client chose to use *. You don't have to use * if you don't want to. It's > a convenience. > > The convenience of * comes with a price, of course: (a) the inability to > statically catch undeclared names without also anlayzing external files, (b) > the hazard of name collisions, and (c) the inability for a reader to tell > where names are coming from without automated analysis.
We intend to rule out (b) by disallowing import * from shadowing. But yes, the convenience does mean that the bindings are not explicitly named. That's the trade-off. I prefer to leave this trade-off to developers. Others prefer to make a unilateral ban on *. Reasonable people can disagree. But in my calculus, that argues for inclusion in the language and letting developers or teams make the decision for themselves whether to use it. > Is it worth it? How can we tell? By implementing it in SpiderMonkey! :) Seriously, though, we intend to build modules so people can get a feel for it. I understand that import * is controversial. ES6 modules don't depend inherently on them. I believe that they're an important convenience for scripting. But they're not fundamental. Dave
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
