>
> #2 was removed at the hallway discussion of the face to face meeting. Do
>> you still think we should remove #3?
>>
>>
>
After thinking about it a little more, I think deferring #3 might be best
after all. Let's assume that the syntax is `export default =
AssignmentExpression`. And further, let's assume that when a default
export is specified, it will almost invariably be a function or class. If
so, then #3 will almost always be inferior to #1.
Consider the following module cycle, where the modules are arranged in
their execution order:
// A.js
import b from "B.js";
b(); // Error: b has not been initialized
// B.js
import {} from "A.js";
function b() {}
export default = b;
// main.js
import {} from "B.js";
I believe that this will fail, because the local binding "b" in "A.js" has
not been initialized yet. However, using #1 it works just fine:
// A.js
import b from "B.js";
b(); // OK
// B.js
import {} from "A.js";
function b() {}
export { b as default };
// main.js
import {} from "B.js";
The aesthetic advantage of #3 over #1 is arguable at best, so it appears
that the only way in which #3 is justified is when the exported value is
*actually constructed at runtime*. At this time, it's not clear to me that
this is anything but a rare edge case. If ES6 usage patterns prove
otherwise, then a case can be built for adding syntax in ES7.
Thanks for hearing me out!
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
