There are special features we want to expose if a module defines a certain
key. However, we’d like to not rely on certain names just because there’s
some chance they came up with it themselves. If it was a symbol that we
gave them access to, it would be impossible for this to be the case, they
would have had to grab the symbol from us:
var SpecialSymbol = require(“our-symbols”).SpecialSymbol;
export { whatever as SpecialSymbol }
The difficulty I’m having right now is being torn by two competing “best
practices”: on the one hand, you can’t do what I did above for the runtime
reasons, on the other hand you CAN actually pull it off using the export
default strategy, and in that situation it technically is safer for us to
use our special symbol instead of relying on a string match.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Logan Smyth <loganfsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The main issue is that modules are statically analysable and
> imports/exports are processed before the module executes, and the behavior
> of a symbol is by definition a runtime thing. Until the code executes,
> there would be no symbol object, and there would be no way to know what
> thing was being imported imported / exported.
>
> The primary benefit of symbols is that they are unique, and cannot collide
> unless you have a reference to them. Module exports have full control over
> their names and don't have the same collision issues that objects and
> classes generally do. What is the benefit you are hoping to get from
> exposing these values on symbols instead of string keys?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Francisco Tolmasky <tolma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not sure if it isn’t the case, but it seems the only way to export
>> symbols right now is:
>>
>> ```js
>> export default { [Symbol(“something”)]: blah }
>> ```
>>
>> It would be nice if “symbol literals” could somehow be supported. In
>> particular, I can imagine this sort of thing becoming common:
>>
>> export { “5.4” as Symbol(“version”) }
>>
>> Or, even better (but harder since its now more expression):
>>
>> import VersionSymbol from “symbols"
>> export { “5.4” as VersionSymbol }
>>
>> I’m currently writing an API where there are expected methods stored in
>> symbols, but this forces exporting one default object instead of being able
>> to lay them out individual.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Francisco
>>
>> --
>> Francisco Tolmasky
>> www.tolmasky.com
>> tolma...@gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>>
>
--
Francisco Tolmasky
www.tolmasky.com
tolma...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
