Are you saying that in the future each browser can have its own rule for module specifier strings?
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Domenic Denicola <[email protected]> wrote: > It is syntactically valid, but there is no specification for what the > module specifier string should contain. Traceur has one rule, and if you’re > using Traceur you need to follow Traceur’s rules. I’m sure other > transpilers have their own chosen rules. > > > > In a hypothetical future where browsers have a module loader, they will > have their own rule. Similarly, io.js will have its own. > > > > *From:* es-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mark > Volkmann > *Sent:* Sunday, May 31, 2015 17:21 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* import ModuleSpecifier > > > > I was under the impression that the following is a valid import statement: > > > > import {something} from './somefile'; > > > > I know this used to work in Traceur. However, in the latest version of > Traceur I have to include a file extension like this for it to work: > > > > import {something} from './somefile.js'; > > > > I don't see any place in the spec. where it describes whether > ModuleSpecifier should include a file extension. Maybe I just missed it. Is > Traceur correct to require it? > > > > -- > > R. Mark Volkmann > > Object Computing, Inc. > -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
