On 16 April 2013 20:36, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 16, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 16 April 2013 18:55, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm gonna bite the bullet here and tempt the bikeshedding demons by making >>> an incremental suggestion for a syntax for anonymous import/export that >>> adds to your syntax. >>> >>> export default f(1, 2, 3); // creates anonymous export by >>> evaluating RHS expression >>> >>> import default as foo from "foo"; // binds the anonymous export from >>> module "foo" to variable foo >> >> OK, you asked for it. > > Indeed... :-} > >> 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? > > Because character count is not the only measure of clarity. And requiring a > naming convention imposes standardization costs. We're the standards body!
I don't understand. Are you saying that it has a higher cost to standardize a trivial convention than it is to standardize additional ad-hoc syntax? > Not only that, but there's also the problem of interoperability with existing > code (AMD, NPM, etc) that uses the "single dynamic export" idiom. Sure, but that's probably equi-distant from both solutions, i.e., neither makes that easier or harder than the other. At least I don't see how. /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
