@lbljeffmo our package.json proposal has a mix of convention (module: "module.js" opts you in) and configuration (enumerating modules) 1/
-
-
@wycats Indeed -- that's kind of the point of the ".mjs" proposal: Know immediately what kind a module is by it's name. -
@lbljeffmo right, which makes this incorrecthttps://twitter.com/lbljeffmo/status/726236426510163968 … -
@wycats adding support (but not requirement) for require("./foo.mjs") does not the public interface, it amends the options for one -
@wycats *does not change the public interface -
@wycats require("./foo.js") means "CJS module" today -- nothing changes about that with addition of .mjs
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@lbljeffmo if node decides not to go with .mjs, will flow change to it? -
@wycats Flow will support node, whatever that means. ".mjs" will be a *much* simpler change, but both are technically viable.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.