This is best introduced in a possible syntax:
```javascript
import { A, B, C } as d from "module";
```
Essentially, it would allow for some form of importing only some exports
into a namespace. This would not affect the browser or environments like
node, but it would be a boon for module bundlers, such as webpack, rollup,
parcel, etc. It would allow you to specifically define which imports you
want, and the rest to be tree-shaken, and without any quirks of trying to
guess which imports from a
```javascript
import * as d from "module";
```
are used.
It also would prevent the scope from getting cluttered. An example of where
this would be undesirable/annoying is the `@material-ui/icons` package on
npm. It exports many different icons, and an example of using them might be
as such:
```jsx
import {
Wifi,
Accessibility,
Add,
Save,
Search
} from "@material-ui/icons";
import SearchBar from "./search";
// use them in some way
export default () => (
<>
<SearchBar />
<Wifi />
<Accessibility />
<Add />
<Save />
<Search />
</>
)
```
Alternatively, you could just import them `* as icons`, but then that
imports all of them and inflates the bundle size.
If this proposal were to be implemented, you could do something like
```jsx
import {
Wifi,
Accessibility,
Add,
Save,
Search
} as icons from "@material-ui/icons";
import Search from "./search";
// use them in some way
export default () => (
<>
<Search />
<icons.Wifi />
<icons.Accessibility />
<icons.Add />
<icons.Save />
<icons.Search />
</>
)
```
and avoid the downsides.
This would also work for a library like lodash. It currently has ~320
utility functions, looking through their documentation, so importing `* as
_` would conflate the bundle immensely. With this proposal, issues like
that would be much less prevalent.
--
Noah Oxer
Student, Programmer, and Video Gamer
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
