One plausible variant to our proposal that might be easier to swallow (as it doesn't have the special-cased ObjectLiteral problem) is:
- Replace `export ExportSpecifierSet` with `export ObjectLiteral` for static exports - Allow `export = foo` (or something like it) for single exports - Unify the import syntax to support the full destructuring syntax and to work on both static and single exports This retains the advantages of reducing micro-syntax and reforming import without forcing an awkward special-casing of `export ObjectLiteral` On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Domenic Denicola < dome...@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > For the record, here's the idea Yehuda and I worked out: > > https://gist.github.com/1ab3f0daa7b37859ce43 > > I would *really* appreciate if people read it (it's easy reading, I > promise!) and incorporated some of our concerns and ideas into their > thinking on module syntax. > > In general, it tries to eliminate the ExportSpecifierSet and > ImportSpecifierSet microsyntaxes in favor of standard object > literal/destructuring forms, respectively. It also made export and import > syntax symmetric. > > It apparently failed to get much traction among committee members, mainly > because of objections to our reformation of the export-side syntax. > (Second-hand info.) E.g. the current export function foo() { } was > preferred to the proposed export { foo() { } }, and---less > aesthetically---our special behavior for ObjectLiteral expressions over > other expressions was a bit weird. > > I still think the import-side reformation is important and stand by > everything in the proposal in that regard. As mentioned in other messages > in this thread, the current form is confusingly dual-natured. And I > maintain that the incomplete semi-destructuring microsyntax of > ImportSpecifierSet adds a lot of cognitive burden. > > If we can start by fixing the import side, I have some other ideas on how > to make the export side better that hopefully will be more appealing to the > committee. But I don't want to try proposing those yet until we can get the > buy-in on fixing import. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org [es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] > on behalf of Erik Arvidsson [erik.arvids...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, December 06, 2012 09:54 > *To:* Kevin Smith > *Cc:* es-discuss > *Subject:* Re: Module Comments > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Kevin Smith <khs4...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dave responded by pointing out that we don't want "from" to have >> overloaded semantics. I actually think this form has potential, because it >> further aligns import with the other binding forms: >> >> var a = x; >> var { b } = y; >> >> // Symmetry! >> >> import a from "x"; >> import { b } from "y"; >> > > +1 > > This also matches what Yehuda and Domenic proposed a few weeks ago. > > -- > erik > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Yehuda Katz (ph) 718.877.1325
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
