On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:41 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascr...@cscott.net> wrote: > That is, IMHO mutable bindings and modules with cyclic dependencies > are members of "the bad parts" of JavaScript. Sure, sometimes there's > a valid reason to use them. But for most developers they will be > happier sticking with "the good parts" and just thinking of modules as > objects with immutable properties.
(And, just to be clear: I'm not saying that mutable bindings etc don't belong in the spec. They have valid use cases, and for some users this functionality will be very useful. Handling of cyclic dependencies is arguably one of the improvements the spec makes over the status quo. I'm glad the module spec authors have thought hard about the issue and come up with reasonable solutions. But these features should be recognized as *corner cases* which don't merit gratuitous deviations from standard syntactic forms in the common case.) --scott _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
