Re: Re: ModuleSpecifier: include ".js" or not?

[monolithed]

This question has already been asked
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2015-February/041430.html


I prefer to follow the following rules:


 File structure

```
root/
   foo/
   index.js

```

 Export module

```js
   export default foo class () {}
```

 Import module

```js
import foo from './foo';
```
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: ModuleSpecifier: include ".js" or not?

[Wes Garland]

Some food for thought from a non-standard use-case.

In GPSEE, we can require("module") - but we support both modules written in
JavaScript, and modules written in C (technically, any compiled binary with
the correct C API), or both. We dlload("module.so") (if present), then
interpret "module.js" (if present) as part of the module loading procedure.

So, from my POV, loading a module from script with the extension .js is not
ideal.  If you are going to assign meaning to the extension, you must think
about what it means.  In our case, it indicates the file type to load, and
the implementation of the library is not relevant to the library user -
only the API matters.  And if you are only ever going to allow one
extension type, then there is no point to typing .js on the end of every
module name.

In my opinion, the ModuleSpecifier should be fed the module name, and is it
up to the loader to munge the filename (eg by adding .js) as it sees fit.

Wes
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

ModuleSpecifier: include ".js" or not?

[Axel Rauschmayer]

In Node.js you can either mention the file extension ".js" or omit it when you 
require a module. Which one is preferred for ES6 ModuleSpecifiers?

Thanks!

Axel

-- 
Dr. Axel Rauschmayer
a...@rauschma.de
rauschma.de



___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss