export-default-from: what's the status?

🦋 Proposals
1

Proposal: GitHub - tc39/proposal-export-default-from: Proposal to add `export v from "mod";` to ECMAScript.

This proposal has stagnated for a while. It seems the proposal is still waiting for spec text, but I see that spec text is already written and not in a bad shape (I did not look too closely). I wonder what community effort would help bring it forward.

On a related note, I hope export default from "mod"; can be dropped from the proposal because it introduces so many ambiguities while the counterpart import default from "mod"; isn't even valid syntax. I didn't create an issue for this because the repo seems dead.

2

import whatever from 'mod' is absolutely valid syntax.

3

Right, but I'm talking about import default from "mod" literally. The proposal wants to allow export default from "mod" but that creates quite some trouble.

4

That's just a bug in the spec text; there's no issue with it.

import default from 'mod' is certainly invalid, but making export default from 'mod' is one of the whole points of that proposal.

5

How can such bugs be fixed, though? By that I mean keeping the parse result of these:

export default from;

export default from
ARandomExpression;

The only conceivable fix to me looks like this:

export default [lookahead ≠ from] AssignmentExpression;
export default [lookahead = from;] AssignmentExpression;
export ModuleExportName from [NLTH] ModuleSpecifier;

...but that just looks so, so ugly. Alternatively we can use a cover grammar, but again it doesn't seem to justify the effort.

At the end of the day I don't know why this form has to be proposed. We already have export { default } from "mod";. The proposal says we need export v from "mod"; because people expect it to work based on symmetry with imports, and that's convincing. But I don't know why anyone would expect export default from "mod"; to work when there's no import counterpart.

Anyway, my question would more be "what is the criteria for stage 2 because spec text is complete (although buggy)" and "how may community effort help bring it forward or is it awaiting design choices from the champions for the bug above".

6

It requires a champion, at the least - i don’t think community effort can do anything at this point.