So I think this argues for two actions: 1. Leave the syntax as-is. The "module from" syntax makes the distinction between getting the module instance object, and importing bindings from a module very clear.
2. Educate. Perhaps those of us on the list that really get modules should be writing about them as well. On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Brian Di Palma <off...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Calvin Metcalf > <calvin.metc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > isn't the foot gun the difference between single and multiple exports, > i.e. > > I thought it was imports that were being misused. People were writing > > module m from 'mymodule'; > > m(); > > So they treated `module` just like `import`. I'm not sure I see the > logic in doing that. > Did they not wonder why there were two ways to accomplish the exact same > thing? > As I said, I didn't find the reasoning compelling. > > > to import underscore you'd use > > > > module _ from 'underscore' > > > > because it is multiple methods on an object but for jquery you'd have to > use > > > > import $ from 'jquery' > > > > because the root object is a function instead of an object > > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I was more wondering if there was anything preventing a module import > >>> statement from being added later, if it was found to be a requirement. > >>> I can't see any reason why it couldn't, that would also allow time for > >>> bikeshedding the syntax. > >> > >> > >> It could be added later, but to turn the question around: why should it > >> be > >> dropped? It has been part of the design for a very long time, it's > >> currently used by many people working in the ES6 space, and it meets a > >> semantic need. > >> > >> If you want to drop a feature this late in the game, then you need to > show > >> that it's one of the following: > >> > >> 1. Buggy > >> 2. A footgun > >> 3. Not useful > >> 4. Future-hostile > >> > >> I don't see that it meets any of those requirements, do you? > > > > I have no strong opinions either way. I don't feel it's any of those > things. > > > > The argument that was given was that people were confused by it and > > were using it like an `import` statement. > > I said to Eric via Twitter that if people were building incorrect > > compilers and modules then they will eventually learn the error of > > their assumptions. > > > > To me the argument didn't seem that strong, the native implementations > > will be correct and people will correct their broken code. > > > > I'm not supporting the removal. I simply don't think it's a catastrophe. > > > >> > >> Kevin > > _______________________________________________ > > es-discuss mailing list > > es-discuss@mozilla.org > > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
