> These and other options have been discussed on es-discuss over the past 2 or 3 years
But back then there was no real world usage yet? Shouldn't new feedback be taken into account? On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Forbes Lindesay <[email protected]> wrote: > > Please, cosmetic changes only! : ) > > > Fair enough. In that spirit, how about we keep the functionality that > was recently dropped, but fix the strange wording of it (a cosmetic change) > so that it becomes: > > > ```js > > import 'underscore' as _; > > ``` > > > as has been suggested by other people. It's not ideal, but we then end > up with three ways of importing a module: > > > Single default export: > > > ```js > > import mkdirp from 'mkdirp'; > > ``` > > Many named exports: > > ```js > import 'underscore' as _; > ``` > > Individual named exports: > > ```js > import {map} from 'underscore'; > ``` > > That is a small cosmetic change (relative to what was the proposal until > a few days ago) but, I believe, provides all the required functionality. > This has already been proposed by others in this thread, and i don't think > I've seen any meaningful criticism of the idea? > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
