Story is way too simple. JS const means constant, unchanging. By contrast, import bindings, like const in C++, means "read-only view". This is *very* different from constant.
Don't use the "const" analogy when changes are still observable. On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > -- Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
