On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Claus Reinke <claus.reinke at talk21.com> wrote:
>> This is a static error.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Take the following situation:
>>>
>>>     // M.js
>>>     export * from "foo";
>>>     export * from "bar";
>
>
> I am confused: I thought "import *" was removed because, in the
> presence of dynamically configured loaders, it would leave tools
> (and programmers) unable to infer the local scope without executing code.
> Now we have the same issue back via "export *", just need a re-exporting
> intermediate module?

No, you don't. `import *` affects the names bound in a module.
`export *` doesn't.  You still can't import a name without listing it
explicitly, meaning that it's always easy to determine the local
scope.

Sam

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Claus Reinke <claus.reinke at talk21.com> wrote:

> I am confused: I thought `import *` was removed because, in the
> presence of dynamically configured loaders, it would leave tools
> (and programmers) unable to infer the local scope without executing code.
> Now we have the same issue back via `export *`, just need a re-exporting
> intermediate module?

No, you don't. `import *` affects the names bound in a module.
`export *` doesn't.  You still can't import a name without listing it
explicitly, meaning that it's always easy to determine the local
scope.