Provide JS Modules export?

Hi @sindresorhus!

This module is pretty popular, and its functionality is fairly segmented (get vs set). I’m willing to bet a decent number of people are only using this to safely retrieve the value at a dotted path (not set).

Given that assumption, I was wondering if you’d be open to providing a JS Modules version where { set, get } are named exports? I’d be happy to open a PR, though I’d need to know what solution you’d prefer for transpiling modules to commonjs (I’m biased).

Cheers!

[sindresorhus]

If they are going to be “named exports”, I think it would make sense to make them named something like import {getProperty, deleteProperty} from 'dot-props';. Thoughts?

[saibotsivad]

Just another perspective: I actually use the import { get } from 'dot-prop' a lot in a large API project, and it seems pretty readable to me. An example route handler might look like:

import { get } from 'dot-prop'

export default async ({ mediator, query, security }) => {
    if (get(security, 'security/public-mobile-app')) {
        query.state = 'published'
    }

    return {
        status: 200,
        body: {
            data: await mediator.call('controller/players/find', { query })
        }
    }
}

Coming from projects that use lodash with the _ a lot, I feel like _.get( is just as readable as get( but I am all for making names more wordy:

import { getProperty } from 'dot-prop'

export default async ({ mediator, query, security }) => {
    if (getProperty(security, 'security/public-mobile-app')) {