On 16.05.2010 22:11, Brendan Eich wrote:
On May 16, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Dmitry A. Soshnikov wrote:
On 15.05.2010 19:22, Brendan Eich wrote:
On May 15, 2010, at 7:53 AM, David Herman wrote:
I wonder if you considered having an export list, rather than
tagging the individual exports? I think that makes it easier to
see/document the public API of a module. You could at the same
time allow renaming on export.
Yes, this is a good point. We chose inline-export for convenience,
but I don't see any reason not to allow both.
+1 on an export form that takes a list of already-declared names.
Besides, the variation with
export all; // or export "all";
can be considered. It can be useful for debug.
Debugging is good.
This is a minor point, but rather than all, we'd use * instead, to
mirror import M.* or M.{*} or import * from M; whatever it ends up being.
Ah, sorry, yes. * on import covers this need, so "all" is obsolete on
export.
Excluding:
export all except [intrinsic, builder]; // if we don't want to write
20 of 22 methods to be exported
This is overdesign. By far the most common case is explicit export of
a select list of API functions and consts.
Yep, I thought so too after that, so forget about this. The main purpose
of a general export at the top of a file is a quick look on what are
being exported (and convenience to write the only export statement) and
"except" concept from this viewpoint is less informative. Moreover,
again * on import eliminates this need.
Dmitry.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
