Is the common use case for "export default" when you want to give users of
the module an easy way to obtain a single function?

So instead of users doing this:

import {someFn} from 'wherever';

they can do this:

import someFn from 'wherever';


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Rick Waldron <waldron.rick at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkmann at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to understand how that compares to ES6 modules. I see how in
>>>> ES6 I can import specific things from a module or I can import everything a
>>>> module exports.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't really import all exported bindings.  You can import the
>>> module instance object itself:
>>>
>>>     module M from "wherever";
>>>
>>> which will give you access to all of the exports.
>>>
>>
>> That's what I meant by importing all the exports.
>> I'd prefer it if the syntax for that was
>>
>> import M from "wherever";
>>
>
> As Kevin said, this already means "import the default export from
> 'wherever'"
>
>
>>
>> That way I could think of import is doing something like destructuring
>> where the other syntax below is just getting some of the exports.
>>
>> import {foo, bar} from "wherever"';
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Am I correct that a "default" export can be somewhere in the middle ...
>>>> a subset of everything that is exported?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not really.  The default export is literally just an export named
>>> "default".  There is sugar on the import side, where you can leave off the
>>> braces:
>>>
>>>      import foo from "somewhere";
>>>
>>> is equivalent to:
>>>
>>>     import { default as foo } from "somewhere";
>>>
>>> The specialized default export syntax is just plain confusing and should
>>> be jettisoned, in my opinion.  It would be less confusing for users to
>>> simply write:
>>>
>>>     export { foo as default };
>>>
>>> I fail to see why sugar over this form is necessary.
>>>
>>
> Because it doesn't allow for the Assignment Expression form (specifically,
> function expressions) that developers expect to be able to write:
>
>   export default function() {}
>
>  Rick
>



-- 
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140314/a94be26d/attachment.html>

Is the common use case for "export default" when you want to give users of
the module an easy way to obtain a single function?

So instead of users doing this:

```js
import {someFn} from 'wherever';
```

they can do this:

```js
import someFn from 'wherever';
```