On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:04 PM, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2014, at 3:31 AM, Michał Gołębiowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Compare these 3 forms of importing all the module "lodash" bindings to > an object _: > > ```js > > var _ = require("lodash"); // Node > > import * as _ from "lodash"; // Dave's syntax > > import "lodash" as _; > > ``` > > My feeling is that the clutter is small, and it's acceptable to have it be > slightly less minimal than default export since that is the case we are > favoring. This isn't so cluttered as to be downright *punishing* > multi-export utility modules (it's literally only two characters longer > than your Node code, albeit admittedly a little chattier), but it's good > that default import is the winner. > IMO it's not even that much a question of taken space but of potential confusion. People will think if they can do: ```js import * as _ from "lodash"; ``` they can do: ```js import * from "lodash"; ``` as well. Also, there are reports of thinking that the first form exports not only the _ container object but also all individual methods as in Python. I'd still prefer: ```js import "lodash" as _; ``` I think it's less confusing that other proposals and reads naturally; it also corresponds more to other module systems. But if that's out of the picture, sth like: ```js import module _ from "lodash"; ``` would be IMO less confusing that the proposed `* as _` form. -- Michał Gołębiowski
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
