If it had good enough support for circular dependencies, would we be able to make sense of "module-as-module" designs?
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > My recommendation is to drop the default export feature and leave >> everything else as is (except perhaps for making module.x equivalent to x >> per Andreas). Given that the current module system has far better support >> for circular dependencies than "module-as-module" designs, the static >> export design should be retained. >> > > er, "module-as-object" designs : ) > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
