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

Incorrect constant export example #3032

Open
takrishna opened this issue Sep 10, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Incorrect constant export example #3032

takrishna opened this issue Sep 10, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@takrishna
Copy link

takrishna commented Sep 10, 2024

What about all const variables? - This is unnecessary, so uppercasing should not be used for constants within a file. It should be used for exported constants however.

There are two points:

  1. Based on the above description the provided example appears incorrect
  2. Also, Since const variables can't be changed through reassignment, this example (i.e., variable name) feels odd.

Current example:

// bad
export const THING_TO_BE_CHANGED = 'should obviously not be uppercased';

Perhaps it could be:

// bad
export const some_exported_constant = 'should obviously be uppercased';
@ljharb
Copy link
Collaborator

ljharb commented Sep 10, 2024

"constants" in this context is different than a const variable.

I'm not sure what your suggested change clears up tbh.

@takrishna
Copy link
Author

takrishna commented Sep 11, 2024

If we read the highlighted (bold) in the quoted section above, it basically means that exported constants should to be capitalized, but then the example is right opposite (it says "should obviously not be uppercased".)

With respect to the second point around const, as per ECMASCRIPT specification it is NOT possible to change/reassign an exported const variable, but then the variable naming (in this example i.e., const THING_TO_BE_CHANGED) suggests that it is possible :)

hope this was more clear.

@takrishna takrishna reopened this Sep 11, 2024
@ljharb
Copy link
Collaborator

ljharb commented Sep 11, 2024

because a string with multiple words in it isn't a conceptual constant.

@takrishna
Copy link
Author

because a string with multiple words in it isn't a conceptual constant.

irrespective of being a "conceptual" constant, it would not be possible to mutate/modify a variable declared using the "const" keyword that is assigned with a primitive as its value (in this case a "string"), hence the variable naming "THING_TO_BE_CHANGED" is not justified. It can never be changed, the JS spec simply doesn't allow it.

Here the rule is about "const" variables

What about all const variables?

If it was about "constant" variables (including say "conceptual constants") I would have hoped it to read as:

What about all constant variables?

In my opinion the rule is correct but only the example is misplaced. The rule clearly states that an exported "const" variable should be capitalized and a "const" variable within a file need NOT be capitalized. The example I am referring in this issue is "exporting" a const variable and hence should be capitalized.

In my humble view, constants could very well be made of multiple words, e.g., official country names are perfect examples:
const NETHERLANDS = 'The Netherlands';
const USA = 'United States of America;

@takrishna
Copy link
Author

Perhaps a more appropriate example could be
//bad export const MY_EXPORTED_FUNCTION = ()>return 'hello function';

Instead of choosing a string or primitive assignment, coz it confuses.

@ljharb
Copy link
Collaborator

ljharb commented Sep 13, 2024

True, that would make more sense.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants