On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> * The name of the imported binding is decided by the user of the module, >> not the author >> * The user of the module does not need to know the name of the exported >> binding, set by the author of the module. >> > > If you seriously want to make these claims, you need to respond to > http://esdiscuss.org/topic/quantifying-default-exports . > > Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I'm merely stating that using `import a from "module"` lets the user of the module decide on the name without needing to know what the author of the imported module named it. I remember you made the claim that: > This argument is unsound, since the user always has to know the API of the > source module before use, regardless of whether or not default exports are > used. > But there is still the advantage that the user of the module can name it whatever they want with fewer keystrokes. > >> I therefore want to propose that the default keyword is removed, that >> only named bindings are allowed when exporting in a module, and that method >> A imports the first named binding. >> > > That would mean that simply moving a function definition around within a > module would break clients. Ouch! > > Yes, but only if you swap around the first export with something else. Not sure how large of a problem this is though.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
