Because that assumes everyone needs it all the time. The nice thing about
it being opt-in is that when it comes time to use it a person has to first
learn the entry point and from then on be explicit about it. I prefer
explicitness 99% of the time because it's easier to track down for new
contributors to a code base etc.


- Matthew Robb


On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I guess it just seems odd to me that we HAVE a system in place now for
>> importing "stuff" into a Program with an author defined local identifier
>> name and we're discussing magic like using this or module. Just make it
>> another thing the author imports inside their own module? ``` import meta
>> from "./@meta"; ``` or something in the ballpark. Let's use the system
>> we're creating to our advantage.
>>
>>
> That's true, but I don't understand why we can't just have (to use your
> example):
>
>     import module from "./@meta";
>
> As an *implicit* import within each module.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140609/4b467999/attachment.html>

Because that assumes everyone needs it all the time. The nice thing about
it being opt-in is that when it comes time to use it a person has to first
learn the entry point and from then on be explicit about it. I prefer
explicitness 99% of the time because it's easier to track down for new
contributors to a code base etc.