David Herman wrote:
On Dec 5, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Kevin Smith<khs4...@gmail.com> wrote:
1) "export" ExportSpecifierSet ("," ExportSpecifierSet)* ";"
This rule seems too permissive. It allows strange combinations like:
export x, { y: a.b.c, z }, { j, k }, * from "bloop";
I think it would be better to flatten it out a little bit:
ExportDeclaration: "export" "{" ExportSpecifier ("," ExportSpecifier)* "}"
";"
ExportDeclaration: "export" Identifier ("," Identifier)* ";"
ExportDeclaration: "export" "*" "from" StringLiteral ";"
Reasonable point, I'll think about that.
We do not so limit var, let, or const -- why should we limit export? Ok,
it's a bit different (but then import is not, right?).
Style enforcement should not be wired into the grammar. If I want to write
export {odd, even}, {nat: naturals};
why not?
Skipping 'as' reversal, that is a tough one! The export = ... special
form does not suggest a better syntax, alas.
4) Why was this form eliminated?
import x from "goo"; // Note lack of curlies!
In an object-oriented application, we're often going to be importing a single
thing (the class) from external modules. So we may see long lists like this:
import { ClassA } from "ClassA.js";
import { ClassB } from "ClassB.js";
....
import { ClassZ } from "ClassZ.js";
Removing the curlies for this simple case would seem like a win.
Another fair point. I think it might've just been a refactoring oversight.
Cool, definitely want the plain identifier form, it's part of the
binding (and destructuring) pattern language.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
