@Kevin @Brendan
Thanks for the detailed explanation. If I’m not wrong, the exported binding is
the module record in the spec, right?
Also sorry for the confusion about the “object” concept I mentioned. By
“object”, I mean anything qualifies as an "AssignmentExpression” in the spec.
And after reading both of your responses, my question actually becomes: is it
correct that there is not way to rebind the value being exported via the
“export default” declaration, unless you use something like "export { a as
default };"
Does it also mean that:
```js
export default function a() {}
a = 2;
```
The assignment "a = 2” will result in an error, since "function a() {}” is an
expression, so “a” was never defined at that point?
From esthetic point of view, “a" being not bound in the previous snippet really
surprises me, considering its “twin" version:
```js
export function a() {}
a = 2;
```
If I understand the spec correctly, this should cause the “a” export in the
binding be 2.
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Kevin Smith wrote:
>>
>> ```js
>> export default function a() {}
>> a = 2;
>> ```
>> (This should be 2, right?)
>>
>>
>> I *think* the "default" binding in this case would still point to the
>> function. I find this particular example completely baffling, to be honest.
>
> This seems clear. As Dave said, he originally proposed an '=' in between
> 'default' and the *expression* to evaluate on the right. That design
> remembrance should make clear that the default export is a function
> expression (not function declaration) with 'a' the name only in the scope of
> that function (either for recursion or as a downward funarg).
>
> The 'default' binding won't be mutated via the final 'a = 2' statement, so
> the default-exported value is still the result of evaluating the function
> a(){} expression.
>
> /be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
