forgot to hit replay all
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> [Did you mean to reply all?]
>
> ```js
>> var projs = [
>> import "./projections/merc",
>> import "./projections/longlat"
>> ];
>> ```
>>
>
> That idea was last discussed on the list two or three years ago.
>
> var projs = [
> require('./projections/merc'),
>
> require('./projections/longlat')
> ];
>
>
With ES6 modules, you might do something like this:
import merc from "./projections/merc";
import longlat from "./projections/longlat";
var projs = [merc, longlat];
Or if you're impor
sorry guys, was getting confused on VariableStatement vs
AssignmentExpression, gist is updated with correct examples, I guess it
seems somewhat overly complicated having 4 different ways to export things
each with their own arbitrary restrictions which leads to weirdness, e.g.
if you want to export
>
>
> ```js
> let app = module.exports = require('express')();
> ```
>
Not impossible. Possibly:
import express from "express";
let app = express();
export { app as default };
I think you're attempting to optimize edge cases.
Also, I agree with Domenic. Read the grammar for the cu
21:46
To: Jason Orendorff
Cc: Domenic Denicola; Erik Arvidsson; EcmaScript
Subject: Re: restrictions on module import export names
ok so would this be accurate https://gist.github.com/calvinmetcalf/8701624 ?
the syntax does make it impossible to write something equivalent to
```js
let app = mod
ok so would this be accurate https://gist.github.com/calvinmetcalf/8701624 ?
the syntax does make it impossible to write something equivalent to
```js
let app = module.exports = require('express')();
```
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Jason Orendorff
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Calvin Metcalf
wrote:
> *would be equivalent of it was allowed
>
>[...]
>> So the following are equivalent?
>>
>> ```js
>> export default foo();
>> export let default = foo();
>> ```
Yes.
-j
___
es-discuss mailing list
-
> *From:* es-discuss on behalf of Calvin
> Metcalf
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 29, 2014 18:25
> *To:* Jason Orendorff
> *Cc:* EcmaScript; Erik Arvidsson
> *Subject:* Re: restrictions on module import export names
>
>
> So the following are e
endorff
Cc: EcmaScript; Erik Arvidsson
Subject: Re: restrictions on module import export names
So the following are equivalent?
```js
export default foo();
export let default = foo();
```
On Jan 29, 2014 5:19 PM, "Jason Orendorff"
mailto:jason.orendo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On We
So the following are equivalent?
```js
export default foo();
export let default = foo();
```
On Jan 29, 2014 5:19 PM, "Jason Orendorff"
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Erik Arvidsson
> wrote:
> > `export default 1` works.
> >
> > https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#s
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Erik Arvidsson
wrote:
> `export default 1` works.
>
> https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-exports
>
> ExportDeclaration :
> export default AssignmentExpression ;
I think that just exports the value 1 with the name "default".
-j
___
`export default 1` works.
https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-exports
ExportDeclaration :
...
export default AssignmentExpression ;
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Calvin Metcalf
wrote:
> related, is it possible to export anonymous objects?
>
> from looking at the s
related, is it possible to export anonymous objects?
from looking at the spec it would seem that
```js
let foo = 1;
export foo as default;
```
would be allowed but
```js
export 1 as default;
```
would not
so to export an object that doesn't already have a name you'd have to
something like:
`
There are still unresolved issues in the Rev22 spec. with the newModule (or
possibly new Module) API. t probably needs to say that any property names must
conform to IdentifierName.
The grammar requirement of IdentifierName is intentional and I don't believe
there is any intent to allow that re
I assume that I can access this like so:
var mod = newModule({'a.b.c':1})
use(mod['a.b.c']);
It isn't clear to me why imports and export names are restricted.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> // a.js
>>
>> var foo = 1;
>> export foo as 'a.b.c';
>>
>> // b.js
>>
>> import
>
> // a.js
>
> var foo = 1;
> export foo as 'a.b.c';
>
> // b.js
>
> import 'a.b.c' as foo from "a.js"
>
>
That is not valid. Export binding names (where you have 'a.b.c') must be
IdentifierName.
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https:
I'm wondering if this is valid (or should be):
// a.js
var foo = 1;
export foo as 'a.b.c';
// b.js
import 'a.b.c' as foo from "a.js"
The reason I ask is Modules appear to support have any valid property name
(anything) as an export if the Module is defined directly using "newModule".
_
17 matches
Mail list logo
