> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:09:26 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement > > BelleveInvis wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:11:38 -0700 > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: ES Modules: suggestions for improvement > > > CC: [email protected] > > > > > > Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > > > But I don't think we should ban people from > > > > using `import *` because sometimes it's hard to reason about. > > > > > > Just to focus on import *, here's where I am: > > > > > > I'm in favor of deferring (not to say cutting) import *, in order to > > get > > > ES6 modules spec'ed and avoid protracted maybe-good/maybe-bad arguments. > > > > > > If someone prototyping or REPL'ing feels the pain, they should wail in > > > agony. Enough wailing and we'll figure out something for their use case > > > -- but not on the critical path for ES6. > > > > > > /be > > > _______________________________________________ > > > es-discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http s://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > Agree. > > Ok. > > > `import *` is just a variant of `with` > > No, it's not. > > /be Only explicitly exposed members? that will be a lot better.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
