On Jun 19, 2014, at 16:17 , John Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry to be dense, but I would appreciate more elaboration of this sentence: > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a key sentence in David’s proposal: “ES6 favors the single/default > export style, > > What is the "single/default" export style? If I understand this claim, it > says that a module will typically contain a single export statement, either > named 'default' or not. Is there any evidence to support this? Everything > I've seen contradicts this claim, assuming I understand it. The syntax is ( https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html#sec-exports ): export default AssignmentExpression > and gives the sweetest syntax to importing the default. Importing named > exports can and even should be slightly less concise.” > > Could you please give an example? In my experience, "export default" is rare > or at least divisive since it seems stylistically incompatible with named > exports. I’m surprised, too. But that seems to be the feedback from people working with large module-based client-side projects and from the Node.js community: single exports are most common. I think in client-side projects, one class per module was reported as a frequent use case: ```js // MyClass.js export default class { ... }; // main.js import MyClass from "MyClass"; ``` -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] rauschma.de
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
