I've been thinking about this thread a lot the last couple days. I started out feeling defensive of the current proposal but I think I do agree that the idea of live bound imports is neat it's also not something I'm asking for or planning to use in the near term. I really just want single exports and destructuring of single exports...
Is there a way to eventually spec the 'value as getter' concept separately? On Jun 10, 2014 8:24 AM, "Forrest Norvell" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Domenic Denicola < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> From: es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Marius Gundersen >> >> > I'd say we only support named exports, something like this: >> https://gist.github.com/mariusGundersen/88a4c5690e08da0d07f6 >> >> If you do that, the real-world consequences will be even worse. Nobody >> (to a first approximation) will use ES6 modules at all, as they will be >> entirely incompatible with how modules are used today by both AMD and >> CommonJS communities. >> > > This is my primary concern as well. I know from conversations with Node > developers (some of whom are connected to the development of the platform > itself) that many, if not most, of them are dubious about the benefits of > the new module system. I tend to be pessimistic, so I also tend to write > down my intuition somewhat, but based on the conversations I've had within > the Node community, I would be surprised if a statistically meaningful > number of the modules on npm end up being rewritten to use ES6 module > syntax (once it's even available in V8). If you make changes that affect > the usability of either single export or single import of multiple export, > you're in effect making the headwinds that much stiffer. I think Domenic > and Kevin's concerns about messing with a fragile consensus are entirely > warranted. > > My broader concern is that it's very late in the specification process to > be proposing these kinds of changes, and it feels like the proposals on the > table violate the spirit of the design process that's been proposed for ES7 > and beyond. I know that ES6 is still governed by the old rules, but if the > goal of the future process is to have the volume of changes to proposed > features converge on zero as the feature moves through the process, that > doesn't seem like it has to be something that blocks on the formal adoption > of a new process. > > F > > _______________________________________________ > 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
