Isiah Meadows [email protected]
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Caridy Patiño <[email protected]> wrote: > ``` > import fs; > import "fs"; > ``` > > too confusing :/ I would have to agree. In LiveScript, you have to do a standard `require` call if all you're doing is calling it for side effects, and the shorthand *always* assigns a variable, so the confusion doesn't exist. This proposal doesn't have that benefit. > > On Jan 26, 2016, at 12:59 PM, Paul Tyng <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah, its definitely limited in its scope as to which modules it applies to, > but thats not necessarily a bad thing, i guess a side effect could be that > it pushes more people towards underscore vs dash in module naming. > > We don't need a shorthand on object literals either, but we do. Having the > redundant text does increase the likelihood of a typo, but not by much. > > This doesn't (in theory at least) impact any existing code, and I imagine > would be fairly simplistic in implementation. Famous last words I guess. > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:52 PM /#!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So this is only valid with modules that have a valid JavaScript identifier >> as their name. I think it could be nice in the cases where the identifier >> matches a module name. I don't have an argument against it, and would use it >> if it existed, though I can live without it. >> >> /#!/JoePea >> >> On Jan 26, 2016 12:45 PM, "Paul Tyng" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> No it does not compete with the string literal version (see my proposal, >>> no quotes), its an identifier only. 3d-is-cool is not a valid identifier so >>> couldn't work, neither would es6-shim. >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:44 PM Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> also, would identifier would `import '3d-is-cool';` create? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> That is currently valid syntax for a module that has no exports - ie, a >>>>> module for which you're relying solely on side effects. One popular usage >>>>> is >>>>> `import 'es6-shim';` for example. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Paul Tyng <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I went through the archives and existing proposals, I didn't see one >>>>>> similar to this. I apologize if its been covered before. I thought that >>>>>> redundant import statements could be simplified with a shorthand that >>>>>> works >>>>>> similar to object literal notation. >>>>>> >>>>>> import fs; >>>>>> >>>>>> vs >>>>>> >>>>>> import fs from 'fs'; >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/paultyng/proposal-shorthand-import >>>>>> >>>>>> I would welcome any feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Paul Tyng >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> es-discuss mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
