On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Calvin Metcalf <calvin.metc...@gmail.com> wrote: > isn't the foot gun the difference between single and multiple exports, i.e.
I thought it was imports that were being misused. People were writing module m from 'mymodule'; m(); So they treated `module` just like `import`. I'm not sure I see the logic in doing that. Did they not wonder why there were two ways to accomplish the exact same thing? As I said, I didn't find the reasoning compelling. > to import underscore you'd use > > module _ from 'underscore' > > because it is multiple methods on an object but for jquery you'd have to use > > import $ from 'jquery' > > because the root object is a function instead of an object > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Kevin Smith <zenpars...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> I was more wondering if there was anything preventing a module import >>> statement from being added later, if it was found to be a requirement. >>> I can't see any reason why it couldn't, that would also allow time for >>> bikeshedding the syntax. >> >> >> It could be added later, but to turn the question around: why should it >> be >> dropped? It has been part of the design for a very long time, it's >> currently used by many people working in the ES6 space, and it meets a >> semantic need. >> >> If you want to drop a feature this late in the game, then you need to show >> that it's one of the following: >> >> 1. Buggy >> 2. A footgun >> 3. Not useful >> 4. Future-hostile >> >> I don't see that it meets any of those requirements, do you? > > I have no strong opinions either way. I don't feel it's any of those things. > > The argument that was given was that people were confused by it and > were using it like an `import` statement. > I said to Eric via Twitter that if people were building incorrect > compilers and modules then they will eventually learn the error of > their assumptions. > > To me the argument didn't seem that strong, the native implementations > will be correct and people will correct their broken code. > > I'm not supporting the removal. I simply don't think it's a catastrophe. > >> >> Kevin > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
