On Apr 16, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > > > OK, you asked for it. How exactly is that superior to > > export let it = f(1, 2, 3) > > import it as foo from "foo" > > which is both shorter and does not need any extension to the syntax at all? > > > It is seen as a deficiency (anti-idiomatic?) by some members of the > development community to have to rename the "one thing" at all. I remain on > the fence about it. Maybe developer outreach would be more effective than > syntax, in this case?
But in this case the "one thing" doesn't actually have a pre-existing name so nothing is being renamed. Also, if the export keyword is currently always followed by a declaration keyword (let, const, class, function) there would seem to be a good chance that syntactically no second keyword could be interpreted as an implicit let (or const), so: export foo = f(1, 2, 3); //means same thing as: export let foo = f(1,2,3) I haven't actually analyzed the grammar implications, but it seems plausible. Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
