I'm not talking about MIO properties. I'm talking about the bindings created by import declarations. ________________________________ From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt<mailto:sa...@cs.indiana.edu> Sent: 2014-06-16 13:21 To: Domenic Denicola<mailto:dome...@domenicdenicola.com> Cc: Calvin Metcalf<mailto:calvin.metc...@gmail.com>; es-discuss Steen<mailto:es-discuss@mozilla.org>; C. Scott Ananian<mailto:ecmascr...@cscott.net> Subject: RE: ES6 modules (sorry...)
On Jun 16, 2014 1:06 PM, "Domenic Denicola" <dome...@domenicdenicola.com<mailto:dome...@domenicdenicola.com>> wrote: > > From: es-discuss > <es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org<mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org>> on > behalf of C. Scott Ananian > <ecmascr...@cscott.net<mailto:ecmascr...@cscott.net>> > > > Using destructuring syntax for imports would be a *good thing*. It builds > > on our existing understanding of JS constructs, instead of adding more > > gratuitously different things to learn. > > This would be a very *bad thing*, as long as the current model---where > exports are something wildly different from properties of an object, but > instead are cross-file `with`-esque read-only-but-mutable bindings---was > maintained. It's extremely important that these bindings look and are > manipulated as differently as possible from normal declarations and > destructuring of object properties. In fact, module instance object properties behave nothing like with, and are just like an object with a getter but no setter. Just as with any other getter, they don't always return the same answer, but that doesn't make them anything like with. Perhaps you think JS should get rid of setters and getters, if you think they're like with, but you should just say that if so. Sam
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
