Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Can implementation classes default-export implementation, instead of having a single export? #59

Open
domenic opened this issue Aug 19, 2017 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #101
Open

Can implementation classes default-export implementation, instead of having a single export? #59

domenic opened this issue Aug 19, 2017 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #101

Comments

@domenic
Copy link
Member

domenic commented Aug 19, 2017

We don't have any potential exports beside implementation, right? This would be a decent amount of churn on the jsdom side, but it seems easier to explain.

@Sebmaster
Copy link
Member

The original plan here was to allow for stuff like impl setup methods which are not part of the exposed interface. Not sure if we still need that for anything...

@domenic
Copy link
Member Author

domenic commented Aug 19, 2017

#58 (comment) has some discussion of why this might be a good idea, although it's not concrete enough for me to say that we definitely want to keep the current form, so I'll leave this open for now.

@TimothyGu TimothyGu linked a pull request Dec 25, 2017 that will close this issue
@ExE-Boss
Copy link
Contributor

ExE-Boss commented Aug 5, 2019

I believe that the following:

export default class SomeInterface {
	//
}

is better than:

class SomeInterface {
	//
}
export { SomeInterface as implementation };

@ExE-Boss
Copy link
Contributor

I’m doing this in #141.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants