Why actually export something to satisfy the parsing goal? #3

Activity

1. jdalton

   added

   question

   on Jun 15, 2016
2. jdalton commented on Jun 15, 2016

   

   jdalton

   on Jun 15, 2016

   Last edited by jdalton

   Member

   More actions

   Can you comment on why you decided to advise actually exporting something (export default null) as opposed to a no-op that satisfies the parsing goal (export {})?

   I think export default null is a bit more descriptive but they both accomplish the same goal.
   I could add a shout out to both.
3. jdalton

   closed this as completedon Jun 15, 2016
4. jmm commented on Jun 15, 2016

   

   jmm

   on Jun 15, 2016

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Thanks for the feedback. I think I personally would be a bit more inclined to do export {} (or something like export { /* noop */ } if I wanted to be more explicit), but since there's no hard requirement in terms of that I'll be keeping an eye out for what conventions (like your suggestion) emerge or get traction if this proposal moves forward. I don't know off the top of my head if there'd ever be any other reason to do export default null (though I'd expect it to be rare).
5. jdalton commented on Jun 15, 2016

   

   jdalton

   on Jun 15, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   I think I personally would be a bit more inclined to do export {}

   I think you're right. I'll make the correction.
6. jmm commented on Jun 16, 2016

   

   jmm

   on Jun 16, 2016

   ContributorAuthor

   More actions

   Ok cool. That makes sense to me right now, but if some other convention turns out to be better I'd be all for it.