(bikeshed: don't leave out this option for the syntax `import module from "underscore"`)
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Karolis Narkevičius <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
