Domenic Denicola domenic at
Thu Jun 19 11:56:09 PDT 2014

From: es-discuss <es-discuss-bounces at> on behalf of David Herman <dherman at>

> * **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]( 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.

More information about the es-discuss mailing list