Default Exports

[juliankrispel]

So in light of the issues discovered in this pr I'm now changing the exports mod to be much simpler. cc @yofreke

Here's what I'm doing:

• Keep the exports variable.
• Instantiate the exports object if there isn't one yet.
• export the exports object as the default export.

So basically this:

exports = Hello;
exports.foo = 'dwq';

becomes this:

var exports = Hello;
exports.foo = 'dwq';
export default exports;

[yofreke]

This es6 seems unintuitive at first glance. What are your thoughts on something like:

export default Hello;
exports.default.foo = 'dwq';

I don't like overwriting exports, and while yours is not, it is also not very clear what is happening until the end, since exports is already defined in the module scope.

[juliankrispel]

I think mounting on exports.default is wrong because it's implementation specific to the compiler.

How about just renaming exports to defaultExport

Julian Krispel-Samsel
rainforestqa.com
goodafternoon.co

On Aug 23, 2016, at 9:12 PM, Joe Brown notifications@github.com wrote:

This es6 seems unintuitive at first glance. What are your thoughts on something like:

export default Hello;
exports.default.foo = 'dwq';
I don't like overwriting exports, and while yours is not, it is also not very clear what is happening until the end, since exports is already defined in the module scope.

—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[yofreke]

ty es6

I suppose that is true, since we haven't settled on a compiler yet. What about the following:

const defaultExport = Hello;
export default defaultExport;
defaultExport.foo = 'dwq';

That way any references to exports in the file will still work as intended.

[juliankrispel]

Ok cool. It seems to me like it's pretty conventional to put the export statement at the bottom of a file but if you have a good reason for having that at the top that seems fine. I don't really care too mucg either way tbh.

Whaddayasay

Julian Krispel-Samsel
rainforestqa.com
goodafternoon.co

On Aug 23, 2016, at 11:56 PM, Joe Brown notifications@github.com wrote:

ty es6

I suppose that is true, since we haven't settled on a compiler yet. What about the following:

const defaultExport = Hello;
export default defaultExport;
defaultExport.foo = 'dwq';
That way any references to exports in the file will still work as intended.

—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[juliankrispel]

That seems to work for me though. The thing about not being compiler specific is not just about us choosing a compiler but also user-land. Ideally this should work with whatever other peeps are using. Whether that's webpack or browseriify or whatever else

Julian Krispel-Samsel
rainforestqa.com
goodafternoon.co

On Aug 23, 2016, at 11:56 PM, Joe Brown notifications@github.com wrote:

ty es6

I suppose that is true, since we haven't settled on a compiler yet. What about the following:

const defaultExport = Hello;
export default defaultExport;
defaultExport.foo = 'dwq';
That way any references to exports in the file will still work as intended.

—
You are receiving this because you were assigned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[juliankrispel]

@yofreke also bear in mind you can define exports as a normal variable and babel will adjust to prevent any collisions at compile time - here's and example

var exports = null

export default {}

will compile to

"use strict";

exports.__esModule = true;
var _exports = null;

exports.default = {};

[yofreke]

let