Feature request: Allow to combine default type import with named imports

[danielrentz]

🔍 Search Terms

default named type import

✅ 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

⭐ Suggestion

Allow to combine default type import with named imports in a single statement.

📃 Motivating Example

All these lines are valid syntax:

import def from "m";
import def, { name } from "m";
import def, type { T } from "m";
import def, { type T } from "m";
import type D from "m";

These lines should be valid syntax as well:

import type D, { name } from "m";
import type D, type { T } from "m";
import type D, { type T } from "m";

💻 Use Cases

1. What do you want to use this for? Shorter code, consistency.
2. What shortcomings exist with current approaches?
3. What workarounds are you using in the meantime? Separate imports.

[jakebailey]

IIRC this was intentional, e.g. it's visually confusing that your first example is not type-only and will actually emit a runtime import:

import type D, { name } from "m";

[RyanCavanaugh]

This was indeed intentional, see the implementing PR #35200. In our judgment, the confusion of what this means is not worth the brevity.

[typescript-bot]

This issue has been marked as "Declined" and has seen no recent activity. It has been automatically closed for house-keeping purposes.