// I have a module named `foo`.
// I don't care what `foo` is.
// Including whether or not its a namespace.
// I need make no promises about identifier `foo`.
import {bar} from './foo';On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascr...@cscott.net> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the perspective says: "why would I need to >> import the multiple-exports if I'm specifically overriding the exports with >> a default? Having a way to import both the default and multiple-exports is >> silly and confusing." >> > > For my part, my personal perspective is, "I have a module named `foo`. I > want to write `foo.bar` to get the export named bar. I don't care *what* > `foo` is. Perhaps its a function object for backwards-compatibility. > Perhaps it's a module object because of some circular dependency. Perhaps > it's a plain object. To me it's just a namespace. Please let me use the > same import syntax regardless. In exchange, I promise never to use bare > `foo` in my code." > > There are a couple of different solutions; default-default is one of those. > --scott > > _______________________________________________ > 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
