On Mar 15, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> From: es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kyle
> Simpson
>
>> Would it then be appropriate to explain that conceptually the binding would
>> otherwise indeed be 2-way, but that the immutable/read-only nature of the
>> bindings is what prevents an outside mutation of a module's internals? That
>> is, without such bindings (and errors), a module could be changed from the
>> outside?
>
> I wouldn't really find this an appropriate explanation. That's kind of like
> saying "this building's 6th story would be blue, but the 5-story nature of
> its blueprints is what prevents you from accessing the 6th story." There just
> isn't any 6th story at all. (Similarly, there just isn't any defined [[Set]]
> behavior for module namespace objects at all. You could make up a plausible
> one, like pretending it would modify the original module's bindings, and
> write a revisionist history in which it was removed. But that's not really
> how the spec works.)
the simple story:
imported bindings are all `const` bindings. Think of them as if if they were
written
```js
const import {a,b,c} from "foo";
```
Allen
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
