From: es-discuss <es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org> on behalf of C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net>

> Using destructuring syntax for imports would be a *good thing*.  It builds on our existing understanding of JS constructs, instead of adding more gratuitously different things to learn.

This would be a very *bad thing*, as long as the current model---where exports are something wildly different from properties of an object, but instead are cross-file `with`-esque read-only-but-mutable bindings---was maintained. It's extremely important that these bindings look and are manipulated as differently as possible from normal declarations and destructuring of object properties.

> From: es-discuss <es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org> on behalf of C. Scott Ananian <ecmascript at cscott.net>
>
> Using destructuring syntax for imports would be a *good thing*.  It builds on our existing understanding of JS constructs, instead of adding more gratuitously different things to learn.

This would be a very *bad thing*, as long as the current model---where exports are something wildly different from properties of an object, but instead are cross-file `with`-esque read-only-but-mutable bindings---was maintained. It's extremely important that these bindings look and are manipulated as differently as possible from normal declarations and destructuring of object properties.