Kevin Smith zenparsing at
Wed Jun 25 23:15:27 PDT 2014

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at>

> @John Barton:  Yes, ideally that syntax would work as well when you don't
> need a namespace.  But sometimes you do need a namespace, even if you don't
> care precisely what it is:
> ```
> import {format} from 'url';
> import {format} from 'util';
> import {connect} from 'tls';
> import {connect} from 'net';
> import {fork} from 'cluster';
> import {fork} from 'child_process';
> // etc
> ```

I agree, and importing as a namespace is what ModuleImport is all about.
 Crazy idea:  what if we had this:

    // ModuleImport: import Identifier from StringLiteral
    import fs from "fs";
    import url from "url";

And just got rid of the default monkey-business?  Simple, no confusion, no
refactoring hazards.

Do we *really* need assignable default exports?  If we could jettison that
feature, it would (as John points out) make all of this pain go away.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list