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

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

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.

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

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;

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.

True, that would make more sense.

Hey! I’d love to work on this issue. Can you assign it to me?

@Shlokmonster no, nothing in open source is assigned to people - you just make a PR if you want to work on it. However, note #3072 already exists, so if you have changes to that, instead of opening a PR, please comment on it with a link to your branch.