The fact that here is a distinction between the bindings from the module and the instance object of the module is the issue On Jun 12, 2014 8:30 PM, "Kevin Smith" <zenpars...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
