Re: Re: from './foo' import './foo';

[Isiah Meadows]

I already use a similar snippet for `const foo = require("bar")`,
since not all module names are valid identifiers (think: anything with
a hyphen), and sometimes I prefer to destructure. In Atom, I currently
have a snippet for `const ${2:$1} = require("$1")` and `import ${2:$1}
from "$1"` that I personally use\*, which are incredibly useful (I
don't have to specify whether I'm using named, default, or namespace
imports, and can just type them as I go, and I also get a helpful
default name in the process).

\* Well...not currently, thanks to this ugly bug in a recent update:
https://github.com/atom/snippets/issues/266

-

Isiah Meadows
m...@isiahmeadows.com

Looking for web consulting? Or a new website?
Send me an email and we can get started.
www.isiahmeadows.com


On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Bob Myers  wrote:
> You're seriously underestimating how smart IDEs are or can be.
>
> Some IDEs are already suggesting the entire import statement when a symbol
> is used, based on what's in other modules, package.json, etc.
> There's no reason why an IDE can't auto-suggest the import name based on
> undefined symbols in the file, among other things.
> There's also no compelling reason why you can't type `import {} from
> "module";`, then go back and fill in the symbol name inside the `{}`.
> You could use a snippet manager to make this semi-painless, defining the
> snippet as something like `import {$2} from "$1";`.
>
> Bob
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Vladimir Vapirov
>  wrote:
>>
>> I had the same idea coming from Python to JS. Current import syntax
>> doesn’t allow IDE’s to hint which functions/modules are available for
>> import.
>>
>> Please see my proposal and let me know your thoughts
>>
>> https://github.com/vladi-dev/proposal-reverse-import-syntax
>>
>> ___
>> es-discuss mailing list
>> es-discuss@mozilla.org
>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>
>
>
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Re: from './foo' import './foo';

[Bob Myers]

You're seriously underestimating how smart IDEs are or can be.

Some IDEs are already suggesting the entire import statement when a symbol
is used, based on what's in other modules, package.json, etc.
There's no reason why an IDE can't auto-suggest the import name based on
undefined symbols in the file, among other things.
There's also no compelling reason why you can't type `import {} from
"module";`, then go back and fill in the symbol name inside the `{}`.
You could use a snippet manager to make this semi-painless, defining the
snippet as something like `import {$2} from "$1";`.

Bob

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Vladimir Vapirov <
vladimir.vapi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I had the same idea coming from Python to JS. Current import syntax
> doesn’t allow IDE’s to hint which functions/modules are available for
> import.
>
> Please see my proposal and let me know your thoughts
>
> https://github.com/vladi-dev/proposal-reverse-import-syntax
>
> ___
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

Re: Re: from './foo' import './foo';

[Vladimir Vapirov]

I had the same idea coming from Python to JS. Current import syntax doesn’t 
allow IDE’s to hint which functions/modules are available for import.

Please see my proposal and let me know your thoughts

https://github.com/vladi-dev/proposal-reverse-import-syntax 
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss