The big difference between the two Node.js ES6 module proposals isn't the file extension. It's whether package.json is a viable option.
@slicknet the proposals of course differ by whether a file extension is appropriate, and our proposal argues that package.json works
-
-
@wycats I went through a lot of this thinking with module support for ESLint, so I get it. File extension was one idea there, too. -
@slicknet the fact that so many like eslint went with external config really says a lot. There's a lot of precedent now. -
@wycats we have some nontrivial constraints, too, like you can't have module and script files in the same directory. -
@slicknet we tried to address this transitional story with modules.root and modules: [<dirs or files>] -
@slicknet I'd be interested to know whether eslint would use that info if it existed generically :) -
@wycats you mean package.json as the determinant for module vs. script? Probably not. We tend to not support two ways of doing things. -
@slicknet why wouldn't you go with the official node story if that's how node worked?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@slicknet we go to great lengths to talk about why we think that, so "whether package.json works" is not a disconnected factual questionThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.