If it is considered legal, then I'd say maybe the default export should be named @@default (or a similar symbol) instead.
Ron Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Calvin Metcalf<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 6/24/2014 5:47 PM To: Kevin Smith<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: EcmaScript<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: ModuleImport Side note: is that legal? I assumed you wouldn't be able to do that due to default being a reserved word. On Jun 24, 2014 7:53 PM, "Kevin Smith" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I don't agree that the changes to the semantics are large, if we're talking about simply allowing a single syntactic form for both named and default import and Ron's option (A) (where default and named exports can not co-exist... until ES7 at least). But unless you want to rewrite the design, you cannot prevent a default export and named exports from co-existing: function F() { } export { F as default }; // Named and default _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
