Think about an amendment for import * as X

Airbnb's guidelines forbid the import *, without taking into account the fact that an import * as X defines properly a namespace, showing where the symbols come from, and preventing symbol names collisions.
For me, it would be fine to accept this, so we would need an amendment on top of airbnb's guidelines.

Team, what do you think about this ?

[adrienverge]

Unless we are missing something,

import * as namespace from 'file'

prevents name collisions since objects are accessed through namespace.objectName. So, I agree with you.

But maybe we, JS newbies, don't get all the implications of this rule?

[jmunoznaranjo]

Can you comment on the implications Adrien? Import * as X will import only those functions tagged with export, right?

Why would you need to use it in the first place?

You can do something like this:

// thing.js
export default thing = {
  function that() {},
  function this() {}
};

// main.js
export thing from './thing';
thing.this();
thing.that();

Right?

[adrienverge]

@jmunoznaranjo Yes!

@MichaelZapataScality Yes, this is true!

Then this is a 👎 for me.

[rahulreddy]

@MichaelZapataScality I agree.
I can see a few use cases where namespace imports can be used but the same can be achieved with defaults by tweaking a little it.

I'm fine with michael's suggestion. Then instead of an amendment, we might add a hint-and-tips about following this rule.

how about it ?

Tips are never a bad thing to have!

[koolfunky]

@DavidPineauScality I'm agree about the hint-and-tips

[adrienverge]

+2 David

The only thing is, michael's solution goes back to what I originally suggested to @jmunoznaranjo for the refactor (but was reviewd by @adrienverge I think): Have static functions inside a Class; as this is strictly equivalent, but maybe less explicitly typed.

But then again, it allows sticking to the guidelines.

[adrienverge]

Having a class with only static methods, and declaring explicit exports are two different things:

// thing.js
export default class uselessClass {
  static function that() {}
  static function this() {}
}

// thing.js
export default thing = {
  function that() {},
  function this() {}
};

[ironman-machine]

Okay, this is an object instead of a Class, but there's not that many
differences imho. But well, whatever.

David Pineau
Scality R&D Developer

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Adrien Vergé notifications@github.com
wrote:

I don't agree, having a class with only static methods, and declaring
explicit expoorts are two different things:

// thing.jsexport default class uselessClass {
static function that() {}
static function this() {}
}

// thing.jsexport default thing = {
function that() {},
function this() {}
};

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#13 (comment)
.

[adrienverge]

You're right, it's almost the same functionally speaking.