Add exports to package.json

[ptomato]

Closes: #1464

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (main@3bb1c8c). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1499   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   95.58%           
=======================================
  Files           ?       19           
  Lines           ?    11139           
  Branches        ?     1736           
=======================================
  Hits            ?    10647           
  Misses          ?      486           
  Partials        ?        6           

Flag	Coverage Δ
test262	61.02% <ø> (?)
tests	91.76% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3bb1c8c...edfcd6a. Read the comment docs.

[cjtenny]

🥅

[ljharb]

Note that adding this is a breaking change; the format you've used won't work in every node version, and I'm not sure why this improvement is needed given that the polyfill should theoretically be deprecated very soon? (arguably, should have been deprecated a month ago, per prior agreements)

[ljharb]

this is what would be needed if you wanted to actually support every node version:

Suggested change

	"exports": {
	"import": "./lib/index.mjs",
	"require": "./dist/index.js"
	},
	"exports": {
	".": [
	{
	"import": "./lib/index.mjs",
	"default": "./dist/index.js"
	},
	"./dist/index.js"
	]
	},

but note that this is still a breaking change unless these are the only two files included in the package (which i can see they aren't from the "browser" field above)

[ptomato]

Note that adding this is a breaking change; the format you've used won't work in every node version, and I'm not sure why this improvement is needed given that the polyfill should theoretically be deprecated very soon? (arguably, should have been deprecated a month ago, per prior agreements)

I don't agree that that precludes changes to leave it in a good place, but I didn't realize this was a breaking change.

[ljharb]

@ptomato "leaving it in a good place" is fine within a reasonable timeframe, ofc - adding new features tho, breaking or otherwise, seems a bit out of scope of that.

[littledan]

What's wrong with a breaking change on something at version 0.8?

[ptomato]

Certainly breaking changes are fine at version 0.8, but once I realized this was breaking, it seemed like just churn without a clear benefit, unlike the other breaking changes we've had.