On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com> wrote:

> Now... good use cases could be a sufficient counterargument to all
> this. Maybe we should add `import * from` in 2014. I just want to make
> it totally clear why it's designed this way for ES6. `import * from`
> poses significant problems, both for users and implementations, that
> `export * from` doesn't.

Agreed. I do think there's a good change people will start asking for import * more once they've been using the module system, and we can revisit in ES7. There could also be additional technical challenges with lexical modules (if you can say `import * from x` there are weird scoping paradoxes that are hard to eliminate), so it makes sense to wait to reconsider import * until we're dealing with lexical modules.

Anyway, this will not be happening for ES6. Let's revisit for ES7.

Dave

On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:44 AM, Jason Orendorff <jason.orendorff at gmail.com> wrote:

> Now... good use cases could be a sufficient counterargument to all
> this. Maybe we should add `import * from` in 2014. I just want to make
> it totally clear why it's designed this way for ES6. `import * from`
> poses significant problems, both for users and implementations, that
> `export * from` doesn't.

Agreed. I do think there's a good change people will start asking for `import *` more once they've been using the module system, and we can revisit in ES7. There could also be additional technical challenges with lexical modules (if you can say `import * from x` there are weird scoping paradoxes that are hard to eliminate), so it makes sense to wait to reconsider `import *` until we're dealing with lexical modules.

Anyway, this will not be happening for ES6. Let's revisit for ES7.