Re: Re: import { foo, bar } as obj from 'module

2017-12-13 Thread Andrea Giammarchi
... sorry, I meant: import { export as name.export } from "module" which still is not possible. import { export } as name from "module" could also be compatible with live bindings too, so it seems like a win/win however you look at it On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Andrea Giammarchi <

Re: Re: import { foo, bar } as obj from 'module

2017-12-13 Thread Andrea Giammarchi
> but I wasn’t under the impression that the braces were an object literal or a binding pattern I think nobody thought that, we all assumed destructuring into a namespace. import * as *name* from "*module-name*"; import { *export *} from "*module-name*"; the first is an import "everything" from

Re: Allow specify numbers with suffixes

2017-12-13 Thread Jerry Schulteis
Unless I badly misunderstood Andrey's post he does not want something like numeric separators, that get ignored by the VM; he wants 1M to translate (I presume at compile time) to 1_000_000 (here's hoping numeric separators makes it into the spec) and 3min to translate to 18_000. While I see

Re: Re: import { foo, bar } as obj from 'module

2017-12-13 Thread Darien Valentine
> Those {} that you see in the export and import statements are not objects, it is just syntax. Yes, I know, people confuse them with objects, until they realize they aren’t. We probably should have chosen a different syntax to signal that it is a binding from the module’s environment record. Not

Re: Re: Allow specify numbers with suffixes

2017-12-13 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Darien Valentine wrote: > The runtime version seems likely to create more confusion than not, too. The > example you gave — `10px + 1em` — demonstrates how that might go. One might > expect that to work because css’s `calc` can do it. But

Re: import { foo, bar } as obj from 'module

2017-12-13 Thread Caridy Patiño
those {} that you see in the export and import statements are not objects, it is just syntax. Yes, I know, people confuse them with objects, until they realize they aren’t. We probably should have chosen a different syntax to signal that it is a binding from the module’s environment record.

Re: Re: import { foo, bar } as obj from 'module

2017-12-13 Thread dante federici
Definitely make a proposal for this -- I'm pretty tired of colliding utility function names and having to aggressively namespace them. It's been said but I want to just throw in another voice that this will 100% work with tree shaking, and as we get better at organizing our modules and

Re: es-discuss Digest, Vol 130, Issue 24

2017-12-13 Thread zhaoshche
___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Allow specify numbers with suffixes

2017-12-13 Thread Andreas Rossberg
On 13 December 2017 at 02:26, J Decker wrote: > > My concern would be the non-symmetry/irreversability of this (can't > get out what you put in) > Factorio uses such suffixes in their mods but that's a total one-off. > I've not seen real standards anywhere for this sort of