This is a key sentence in David’s proposal: “ES6 favors the single/default
export style, and gives the sweetest syntax to importing the default. Importing
named exports can and even should be slightly less concise.”
On Jun 19, 2014, at 12:31 , Michał Gołębiowski <m.go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Dave, for bringing that up, it shows you're open for feedback. That
> said (bikeshed begins), what's wrong with:
> ```js
> import "fs" as fs;
> ```
> ? I feel that a lot of effort went in ES6 into reducing boilerplate via e.g.
> arrow functions, classes etc. but if you start with Node's require, this adds
> clutter. Compare these 3 forms of importing all the module "lodash" bindings
> to an object _:
> ```js
> var _ = require("lodash"); // Node
> import * as _ from "lodash"; // Dave's syntax
> import "lodash" as _;
> ```
--
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
rauschma.de
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
