Thanks Kevin. Back to bikeshedding import export syntax.
The refactoring hazards of defaulting to an object with all the exports are going to depend on how the feature is described, talking in terms of looking first for a default export and then returning the module body and now you get unforseen changes when you add an export named default. But if modules were said to have a default default export that was an object with all the exports that could be overridden then that's different. Adding an export named default and the import changed is unexpected, overriding the default export and the default import changed, on the other hand, is not unexpected behavior. On Jun 24, 2014 10:48 PM, "Kevin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Side note: is that legal? I assumed you wouldn't be able to do that due >> to default being a reserved word. >> > Definitely. Exports can be named any IdentifierName, so all of this is > valid: > > export { foo as class, bar as switch, baz as default }; > > And you can import IdentifierNames as well: > > import { class as foo, switch as bar, default as baz } from "wherever"; > > **Here's the crucial point:** > > In fact, the default export is nothing other than an export named > "default". These two import declarations are *entirely* equivalent: > > import { default as whatever } from "module"; > import whatever from "module"; > > Does that make sense? > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
