Yes, that syntax is incorrect and confusing.

There was an overside from our end to provide a way to re-export only the default export from another module, and this is something we plan to revisit for ES7/2016. Probably something like this: 

     `export default from “foo”;`

this is just sugar for:

     `export {default} from “foo”;`

which is perfectly supported in ES6, including the ability to rename it: 

     `export {default as something} from “foo”;`

/caridy

> On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Jason Kuhrt <jasonkuhrt at me.com> wrote:
> 
> I was prompted to bring this issue to es-discuss.
> 
> https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/826 <https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/826>
> 
> It is my confusion about why this syntax does not work:
> 
> export foo from ‘./foo'
> 
> More details are in the issue but the gist is that sometimes it is actually quite handy to export just defaults internally and then re-export thing as a “bag” of named exports. This is not currently “easy”. I assume this was discussed/considered. I’d be curious what the rationale was.
> 
> Thanks!
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150219/5745b3ea/attachment-0001.html>

Yes, that syntax is incorrect and confusing.

There was an overside from our end to provide a way to re-export only the default export from another module, and this is something we plan to revisit for ES7/2016. Probably something like this: 

     export default from “foo”;

this is just sugar for:

     export {default} from “foo”;

which is perfectly supported in ES6, including the ability to rename it: 

     export {default as something} from “foo”;