I like this example. In Vue 2 we exported an entire object using export default for the template to use. With <script setup> we export individual parts for the template to use. It's quite similar.
Java developer, passionate about sci-fi lit, facial hair and a good, hot chicken broth. Totoro is my daily inspiration. You will never catch me wearing sandals.
Yep I got the point, but what I'm actually trying to say is «export» has now another special meaning for build task, not for the language itself or for us («us» meant as «we developers that know JS only»). In order to understand what is behind the build process, we have to read docs to understand that «export» doesn't actually exports a constant, but it helps the build task to create a «special» component with your constant inside. Worst than that you have to specify a... I don't know how to call it a «hashtag»? an «annotation»? an «empty non-compliant attribute»? anyway you have to specify setup in your script tag, otherwise export loses its meaning to build task.
I think there's a disconnect here, so I want to summarize the key points of what I was trying to clarify:
export in Vue works the same as in Vanilla JS.
When Vue compiles an application, it is optimizing the code - not changing the meaning of JS keywords.
Using Vue is the same as any other framework/library in that you need to adhere to the expected format. <script setup> is a proposed acceptable shorthand format, not unlike @click or <style scoped>.
If you have specific questions, I'd love to help clarify more. Concerns about the reliability or user-friendliness of the RFC should be expressed on the RFC.
Java developer, passionate about sci-fi lit, facial hair and a good, hot chicken broth. Totoro is my daily inspiration. You will never catch me wearing sandals.
So you're just telling me that export is used by Vue like always, Vue imports constants, functions, etc... from my script and with that it builds the component? script just says - if understood correctly - imports separately, not altogether like we used to do it in Vue2. Something like that?
Sorry I can't follow the entire RFC, too big :-D
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I like this example. In Vue 2 we exported an entire object using
export defaultfor the template to use. With<script setup>we export individual parts for the template to use. It's quite similar.Yep I got the point, but what I'm actually trying to say is «export» has now another special meaning for build task, not for the language itself or for us («us» meant as «we developers that know JS only»). In order to understand what is behind the build process, we have to read docs to understand that «export» doesn't actually exports a constant, but it helps the
buildtask to create a «special» component with your constant inside. Worst than that you have to specify a... I don't know how to call it a «hashtag»? an «annotation»? an «empty non-compliant attribute»? anyway you have to specifysetupin your script tag, otherwiseexportloses its meaning tobuildtask.Can't you see the issue here?
I think there's a disconnect here, so I want to summarize the key points of what I was trying to clarify:
exportin Vue works the same as in Vanilla JS.Using Vue is the same as any other framework/library in that you need to adhere to the expected format.
<script setup>is a proposed acceptable shorthand format, not unlike@clickor<style scoped>.If you have specific questions, I'd love to help clarify more. Concerns about the reliability or user-friendliness of the RFC should be expressed on the RFC.
So you're just telling me that
exportis used by Vue like always, Vue imports constants, functions, etc... from myscriptand with that it builds the component?scriptjust says - if understood correctly - imports separately, not altogether like we used to do it in Vue2. Something like that?Sorry I can't follow the entire RFC, too big :-D