> The downside is that it introduces a severe anomaly into the module
> semantics (a module which actually has no instance). I could live with
> this feature if we were to find a way to explain it in terms of simple
> syntactic sugar on both the import and export side, but screwing and
> complicating the semantics for minor syntactic convenience is not
> something I am particularly fond of.
>
What if this:
export = "boo";
Actually creates a static export with some exotic name, say __DEFAULT__
(for the sake of argument) and initializes it to the value "boo".
And this form:
import boo from "boo.js";
Creates a binding to __DEFAULT__ in "boo.js", if it exists, or to the
module instance of "boo.js" otherwise.
Would that work as a desugaring?
- Kevin
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
