But why? The benefit of named exports in general is that you get the magic mutable bindings -- but underscore and glob are mature libraries without circular dependencies on other code. They would gain exactly nothing from switching to named exports. --scott On Jun 19, 2014 4:16 PM, "Domenic Denicola" <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: James Burke [mailto:[email protected]] > > > The argument for allowing both a default and named exports seems > ill-defined based on data points known so far > > I mean, it seems based on the idea that named exports are super-important, > and that packages like glob and underscore should use them. I agree that > it's unclear whether this will occur, but that seems to be the reasoning. > _______________________________________________ > 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
