On Jun 19, 2014, at 13:36 , Michał Gołębiowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Axel Rauschmayer <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a key sentence in David’s proposal: “ES6 favors the single/default > export style, and gives the sweetest syntax to importing the default. > Importing named exports can and even should be slightly less concise.” > > There are a lot of large modules that will not disappear overnight. I assume > ES6's recommendation for such things (Node's fs module, Lo-Dash) is to make > those container objects default exports? What are you saying? That you find this syntax too verbose? ```js import * as fs from "fs"; ``` There is a little more clutter, but it’s only 2 characters longer than: ```js var fs = require('fs'); ``` This design decision does make sense if single-export modules are indeed much more common. It’s not what I expected, but it does seem to be the case. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer [email protected] rauschma.de
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
