“foo”;`
this is just sugar for:
`export {default} from “foo”;`
which is perfectly supported in ES6, including the ability to rename it:
`export {default as something} from “foo”;`
/caridy
On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Jason Kuhrt jasonku...@me.com
mailto:jasonku
I was prompted to bring this issue to es-discuss.
https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/826
https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/826
It is my confusion about why this syntax does not work:
export foo from ‘./foo'
More details are in the issue but the gist is that sometimes it is actually
Hey Matthew,
This is another pattern I could take yup.
Kevin pointed that if I suck it up and move all my modules toward named-exports
then my problems go away too. The reason I am using default internally was that
I had modules depending on others which are all uniformly single-function
number of reasons.
Jason
On Feb 19, 2015, at 7:55 PM, caridy car...@gmail.com wrote:
inline
On Feb 19, 2015, at 7:50 PM, Jason Kuhrt jasonku...@me.com wrote:
Hey Matthew,
This is another pattern I could take yup.
Kevin pointed that if I suck it up and move all my modules toward
not simply
import a from a;
import b from b;
export { a, b };
On Feb 19, 2015 8:18 AM, Jason Kuhrt jasonku...@me.com
mailto:jasonku...@me.com wrote:
I hear the verdict but not any substantial rationale; why is it “confusing”?’
@caridy regarding your examples for JS2016 wouldn’t
specifiers.
Essentially, you will have to type those specifiers no matter what :), no
sugar will save you from that.
/caridy
On Feb 19, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Jason Kuhrt jasonku...@me.com
mailto:jasonku...@me.com wrote:
Hi Caridy,
I think you misunderstood my comment about
This proposal would solve my issues:
https://github.com/leebyron/ecmascript-more-export-from
https://github.com/leebyron/ecmascript-more-export-from
And alas it seems I was correct that this is not an impossible problem to solve
at all.___
es-discuss
Exactly what Allen said.
Adding syntax to work around a bad feature is an awful idea. We should be
trying to reduce and remove usage of `this` by reducing resistance to other
ways of programming in JavaScript.
Minimal API Surface areas apply to languages, not just libraries.
>
> > ```
> > let compose = (b, a) => (...as) => b(a(...as))
> > ```
>
>
> As that's clearly not the issue in your stack trace.
>
> Also, if you want these stack traces to be more meaningful, you should be
> talking to the JavaScript engine implementor
> named “x”, etc).
>
> It does not apply to things like `compose(thingA, thingB)`, which is not an
> anonymous function definition.These function names aren’t set at runtime,
> it’s a parse-time operation, and depends on the productions that are parsed.
>
>> On Sep 16, 20
tions that might need debugging.
>
> I also don't see what this has to do with your FP example of:
>
>
> > ```
> > let compose = (b, a) => (...as) => b(a(...as))
> > ```
>
>
> As that's clearly not the issue in your stack trace.
>
> Also, if you want
For example, today, a stone from the bedrock of FP:
> ```
> let compose = (b, a) => (...as) => b(a(...as))
> ```
will cause a JS Stack Trace to go from something useful (space around useful
line) like:
> ```
> Error: Invariant Violation: createClass(...): Class specification must
> implement
12 matches
Mail list logo
