On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <a...@rauschma.de> wrote:
> // my-class.js
> export class MyClass {
> constructor() { ... }
> method() { ... }
> }
>
> // use-class.js
> import { MyClass } from "my-class.js";
>
>
> You do have redundancy in `my-class.js` and, as Marius pointed out, the
> importer has to know both the name of the module and the name of the entity
> inside the module. Not that big of a deal.
>
But these examples are misleading. "my-class.js" is not the name of the
module. Its is a module identifier, and probably incorrect since the
identifier is both absolute and ending in .js.
A more realistic example is
import {MyClass} from "./pretentious/kernel/core/util/my-class";
In the big picture the time to type a few characters in regular pattern is
completely overwhelmed by the time it takes to figure out what MyClass does
and where it lives.
> Again, standardizing on `_` for default exports helps,
>
I guess you meant "developers may choose to adopt short export
identifiers"; I don't suppose you are proposing to standardize _.
> but then importing is more verbose:
>
> // my-class.js
> export class _ {
>
> constructor() { ... }
> method() { ... }
> }
>
> // use-class.js
> import { _ as MyClass } from "my-class.js";
>
> --
> Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
> a...@rauschma.de
> rauschma.de
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
