Explainer based on single string following as
#36
Conversation
|
|
||
| ```js | ||
| import("foo.json", { type: "json" }) | ||
| import("foo.json", "json") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems to be consitent with the ImportDeclaration syntax, allowing both a string and an object (in the future), but It doesn't look as descriptive to me.
what about using the same semantics than the worker instantion, import("foo.json", { as: "json" })?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are there other parameters we might want to send to import() that would not make sense as module attributes?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know, my only argument is that it doesn't look as obvious as an ObjectLiteral with an as key, but I don't feel very strong about that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, I agree that the placement-based syntax isn't so obvious. But, I think if we add object attributes later, it will be weird to have to put them nested inside this {as:} construct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 to @littledan's take here. If we want to use the object form I think we should be consistent with the name of the field rather than as
|
|
||
| ```js | ||
| import("foo.json", { type: "json" }) | ||
| import("foo.json", "json") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
+1 to @littledan's take here. If we want to use the object form I think we should be consistent with the name of the field rather than as
Proposing switching to a single string, following the reasoning in #12 (comment)
cc @xtuc @dandclark @MylesBorins