From: es-discuss <[email protected]> on behalf of David Herman <[email protected]>
> * **Without ModuleImport, authors of multi-export modules would be pressured > to circumvent the named exports functionality.** I am glad this point was recognized and acted upon. I feel listened-to :) > * **The syntax should still favor default import.** Glad that this piece of (strong, pervasive) community feedback is still being kept at the forefront, despite continual naysaying and disbelief from various quarters. > I do acknowledge the concerns about reopening topics for debate and delay. > [...] But keep in mind it doesn't matter what spec it lands in as long as > implementations are shipping it. This is part of a larger issue regarding the messaging of TC39 and versioned ECMAScript, which is somewhat out of touch with [reality](https://twitter.com/annevk/status/479334108150374401). I hope we can discuss this at the next TC39 meeting. But I don't mean to derail the thread. > ```js > import * as fs from "fs"; // importing the named exports as an object > ``` This looks great. Other alternatives I thought about in response included `import { * } as fs from "fs"` and `import module fs from "fs"`, but upon consideration the brevity of yours wins. I just hope we can do better documenting it, this time around, and fixing the many transpilers with their confusing semantics. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
