Importing is nothing like destructuring. You import mutable bindings; you don't
do assignment. I'm very glad that different syntax is used for each case.
________________________________
From: Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 10:19
To: Kevin Smith
Cc: Domenic Denicola; es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: module exports
I understand it's hard to make changes after a certain point. It's too bad
though that developers will have to remember that the way to import a few
things from a module is:
import {foo, bar} from 'somewhere';
but the way to import the whole module is:
module SomeModule from 'somewhere';
instead of
import SomeModule from 'somewhere';
It just seems so clean to say that if you want to import something, you always
use the "import" keyword.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Kevin Smith
<zenpars...@gmail.com<mailto:zenpars...@gmail.com>> wrote:
export { foo as default };
I fail to see why sugar over this form is necessary.
I completely agree. Plus if this is taken away then the "import" keyword can be
used to get the whole module as in my example above. At that point maybe there
is no need for the "module" keyword.
Maybe, but at this point that would be too big of a change to swallow. I think
if we can just focus on eliminating this one pointless and confusing aspect
(the export default [expr] form), we'll be good to go.
--
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
