On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <a...@rauschma.de> wrote:
> I’m assuming that people will default-export objects (for
> Underscore.js-like libraries). I’d call those pseudo-modules, because one
> would be partially working around the module system (no load-time errors!).
>
Then aren't you arguing against default-export?
>
> Maybe we’ll import modules like this [^1], but that feels syntactically
> inconsistent to me and you don’t get load-time errors, either:
>
> ```js
> import "Underscore";
> const _ = System.get("Underscore");
> ```
>
Seems to me that users will write
```js
import {_} from 'Underscore';
```
because the underscore team will write their ES6 modules to support this
syntax.
>
> [^1]: https://gist.github.com/domenic/2230a7195fa0de31a227
>
These examples mix issues. If you want to rename a passel of imports, you
necessarily have a passel of renamings to write. That is not the fault of
the module syntax. Similarly, if the module author chooses to export a long
list of functions, write a long list of imports or find another library.
Finally, analysis based on node modules assumes a function-oriented or
object-based language, but ES6 is a class-based language: based on our
experience the majority of exports going forward will be classes.
jjb
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
