>
> Is there any concrete reason why you consider exporting a string as the
> better alternative to exporting the actual Angular module?
>
No, I actually prefer and currently use the syntax you showed.
`require('some-thing').name`
There was some concern expressed that providing the module would allow
developers to modify "built-in" modules, but I think providing a more
widely used and expected format is more important. If the
`require('angular-route').name` format were enabled, people currently
shimming the modules would essentially be able to remove the shimming
infrastructure and leave their code untouched. That seems like a win to me.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"AngularJS" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/angular.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
