domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-03-21T15:09:54.017Z)
I like that more I read about this, more the `with` statement comes into my mind ... > ```js > console.log(foo); // Oh, yeah, this really means module1.foo > ``` looks like that > ```js > changeFoo(); > ``` here the implicit context ? ... if so, I have no idea which one it is and why ... also, can I change it? Maybe I asked for a function utility, not for a trapped context bound into an exported function I cannot change later on > ```js > console.log(foo); // Ok, since this is secretly module1.foo, the result '10' makes sense. > ``` nope, not at all, at least here
I like that more I read about this, more the `with` statement comes into my mind ... > console.log(foo); // Oh, yeah, this really means module1.foo looks like that > changeFoo(); here the implicit context ? ... if so, I have no idea which one it is and why ... also, can I change it? Maybe I asked for a function utility, not for a trapped context bound into an exported function I cannot change later on > console.log(foo); // Ok, since this is secretly module1.foo, the result '10' makes sense. nope, not at all, at least here Cheers On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:27 AM, John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com> wrote: > I've used es6 modules for several months now and I'm curious to know when > I would want to leverage mutable bindings. > > I guess I need to begin to imagine that variables bound to imports are > really a kind of property name of s secret object: > > import { foo, changeFoo } from "./module1"; > > console.log(foo); // Oh, yeah, this really means module1.foo > changeFoo(); > console.log(foo); // Ok, since this is secretly module1.foo, the result > '10' makes sense. > > jjb > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Domenic Denicola < > domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > >> >> ```js >> >> // module1.js >> export let foo = 5; >> export function changeFoo() { >> foo = 10; >> } >> >> // module2.js >> import { foo, changeFoo } from "./module1"; >> >> // Import imports mutable bindings >> // So calling changeFoo will change the foo in current scope (and >> original scope) >> >> console.log(foo); // 5 >> changeFoo(); >> console.log(foo); // 10 >> >> // module3.js >> module module1 from "./module1"; >> let { foo, changeFoo } = module1; >> >> // Destructuring uses assignment to copy over the current values >> // So calling changeFoo does not affect this binding for foo >> >> console.log(foo); // 5 >> changeFoo(); >> console.log(foo); // 5 >> >> >> >> >> >> From: John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com> >> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 10:35 >> To: Domenic Denicola >> Cc: Mark Volkmann; Kevin Smith; es-discuss at mozilla.org >> Subject: Re: module exports >> >> >> What is a 'mutable binding'? >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Domenic Denicola < >> domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote: >> >> >> Importing is nothing like destructuring. You import mutable bindings; you >> don't do assignment. I'm very glad that different syntax is used for each >> case. >> >> >> >> From: Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkmann at gmail.com> >> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 10:19 >> To: Kevin Smith >> Cc: Domenic Denicola; es-discuss at mozilla.org >> Subject: Re: module exports >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss at mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140314/3ec1f1e2/attachment-0001.html>