(bikeshed: don't leave out this option for the syntax `import module from
"underscore"`)
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Karolis Narkevičius <karolis.n at gmail.com>
wrote:
> > These and other options have been discussed on es-discuss over the past
> 2 or 3 years
>
> But back then there was no real world usage yet? Shouldn't new feedback be
> taken into account?
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Forbes Lindesay <forbes at lindesay.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> > Please, cosmetic changes only! : )
>>
>>
>> Fair enough. In that spirit, how about we keep the functionality that
>> was recently dropped, but fix the strange wording of it (a cosmetic change)
>> so that it becomes:
>>
>>
>> ```js
>>
>> import 'underscore' as _;
>>
>> ```
>>
>>
>> as has been suggested by other people. It's not ideal, but we then end
>> up with three ways of importing a module:
>>
>>
>> Single default export:
>>
>>
>> ```js
>>
>> import mkdirp from 'mkdirp';
>>
>> ```
>>
>> Many named exports:
>>
>> ```js
>> import 'underscore' as _;
>> ```
>>
>> Individual named exports:
>>
>> ```js
>> import {map} from 'underscore';
>> ```
>>
>> That is a small cosmetic change (relative to what was the proposal
>> until a few days ago) but, I believe, provides all the required
>> functionality. This has already been proposed by others in this thread,
>> and i don't think I've seen any meaningful criticism of the idea?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140610/2fafe73b/attachment-0001.html>
forbes at lindesay.co.uk (2014-06-11T14:30:48.046Z)
(bikeshed: don't leave out this option for the syntax `import module from
"underscore"`)
(bikeshed: don't leave out this option for the syntax `import module from "underscore"`) On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Karolis Narkevičius <karolis.n at gmail.com> wrote: > > These and other options have been discussed on es-discuss over the past > 2 or 3 years > > But back then there was no real world usage yet? Shouldn't new feedback be > taken into account? > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Forbes Lindesay <forbes at lindesay.co.uk> > wrote: > >> > Please, cosmetic changes only! : ) >> >> >> Fair enough. In that spirit, how about we keep the functionality that >> was recently dropped, but fix the strange wording of it (a cosmetic change) >> so that it becomes: >> >> >> ```js >> >> import 'underscore' as _; >> >> ``` >> >> >> as has been suggested by other people. It's not ideal, but we then end >> up with three ways of importing a module: >> >> >> Single default export: >> >> >> ```js >> >> import mkdirp from 'mkdirp'; >> >> ``` >> >> Many named exports: >> >> ```js >> import 'underscore' as _; >> ``` >> >> Individual named exports: >> >> ```js >> import {map} from 'underscore'; >> ``` >> >> That is a small cosmetic change (relative to what was the proposal >> until a few days ago) but, I believe, provides all the required >> functionality. This has already been proposed by others in this thread, >> and i don't think I've seen any meaningful criticism of the idea? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20140610/2fafe73b/attachment-0001.html>