I completely agree. As I pointed out below, following the path you suggested, if the filetype has to change to fix the require regression, they could use .es. Would it be surprising to use .es with ECMAScript? No.
Requiring users to adopt a new extension is a massive change and as an end-user I have nothing to gain from this - I'm already using babel and typescript along with a huge part of the community.
If this creates regressions like you said, let users deal with their code that deletes things from frozen objects. Allowing bad behavior to continue and stall the module evolution is questionable at best.
chmln|7 years ago
If this creates regressions like you said, let users deal with their code that deletes things from frozen objects. Allowing bad behavior to continue and stall the module evolution is questionable at best.