Closed
Description
π Search Terms
import defer
β Viability Checklist
- This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
- This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
- This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
- This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
- This isn't a request to add a new utility type: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/No-New-Utility-Types
- This feature would agree with the rest of our Design Goals: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals
β Suggestion
We are working towards a PR implementing the https://github.com/tc39/proposal-defer-import-eval/ proposal, to have TypeScript support ready once the proposal reaches Stage 3. For this proposal I think it should behave as follows:
- This features does not affect type checking, as
import defer * as n
andimport * as n
have the same type. import defer
should only be allowed when targeting ESNext modules, as it's not possible to compile it to older ES versions.- Even though the proposal only supports
import defer * as n
, we should still parseimport defer { ... }
andimport defer foo
and give proper diagnostics, rather than relying on the existing parsing recovery for invalid syntax (that would parseimport defer { x } from "y"
asimport defer = <ident>; { x }; from; "y"
When talking about this with @DanielRosenwasser, he mentioned tsserver support. What would tsserver support look like for a feature like this one? I was thinking maybe a "Convert to deferred namespace import" refactor similarly to how we have a "Convert named imports to namespace import" refactor, but:
- is this something that the TS team prefers to have in the initial implementation or separately?
- am I missing something else that is obvious when it comes to tsserver support?
π Motivating Example
/
π» Use Cases
Implementation of a TC39 proposal