I understand it's hard to make changes after a certain point. It's too bad
though that developers will have to remember that the way to import a few
things from a module is:

import {foo, bar} from 'somewhere';

but the way to import the whole module is:

module SomeModule from 'somewhere';

instead of

import SomeModule from 'somewhere';

It just seems so clean to say that if you want to import something, you
always use the "import" keyword.


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

>     export { foo as default };
>>>
>>> I fail to see why sugar over this form is necessary.
>>>
>>
>> I completely agree. Plus if this is taken away then the "import" keyword
>> can be used to get the whole module as in my example above. At that point
>> maybe there is no need for the "module" keyword.
>>
>
> Maybe, but at this point that would be too big of a change to swallow.  I
> think if we can just focus on eliminating this one pointless and confusing
> aspect (the export default [expr] form), we'll be good to go.
>
>
>


-- 
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140314/5a44615c/attachment.html>

I understand it's hard to make changes after a certain point. It's too bad
though that developers will have to remember that the way to import a few
things from a module is:

```js
import {foo, bar} from 'somewhere';
```

but the way to import the whole module is:

```js
module SomeModule from 'somewhere';
```

instead of

```js
import SomeModule from 'somewhere';
```

It just seems so clean to say that if you want to import something, you
always use the "import" keyword.