-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
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
Comments
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... |
#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. |
I believe that the following: export default class SomeInterface {
//
} is better than: class SomeInterface {
//
}
export { SomeInterface as implementation }; |
I’m doing this in #141. |
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.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: