Good observation. However, if I were to simplify, I’d only keep #3. #1 and #2
look more syntactically questionable to me (kind of abusing names as
keywords/markers).
Axel
On 05 Dec 2013, at 15:18 , Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com> wrote:
> TLDR: We should consider deferring specialized syntax for exporting a
> "default" binding until after ES6.
>
> In the current draft, there are 3 ways to export a default binding:
>
> 1. Export a local binding with the name "default":
>
> class Parser { ... }
> export { Parser as default };
>
> 2. Use "default" as a BindingIdentifier. BindingIdentifer is parameterized
> on [Default]:
>
> export class default { ... }
>
> 3. Use a "default" assignment:
>
> export default class { ... }; // AssignmentExpression
>
> Methods 2 and 3 are inessential - they can be expressed in terms of 1.
>
> Methods 2 and 3 are minor optimizations. Method 1 is by no means painful to
> write or read.
>
> There are some potential downsides to providing methods 2 and 3:
>
> - It may be that they provide too many ways to do the same thing, with too
> little to differentiate them.
> - Method 2 makes the grammar more complex, for parsers and (more importantly)
> users.
> - Method 3, being an assignment, introduces initialization-order sensitivity
> that otherwise might be avoidable.
> - They bind orthogonal issues: On the one hand, the need to export a default
> binding, and on the other, the need to reference a local binding with some
> local name.
>
> Proposal: defer "default export" sugarings until ES7, when we can use data
> gathered from experience with ES6 modules to guide syntax additions.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
home: rauschma.de
twitter: twitter.com/rauschma
blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
