> If it had good enough support for circular dependencies, would we be able > to make sense of "module-as-module" designs? >
OK, so let's assume for the sake of argument that "objects-as-modules" is not confusing, so (4) doesn't apply. All of the arguments for and against default exports also apply to "module-object-overwriting". As such, we are balancing the marginal user experience gains of "export-overwriting" against the better support for circular dependencies of "real" modules. And we must note that allowing users to overwrite the module-object eliminates the advantages of statically analyzable exports in those cases.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
