Include export specifiers in the list of syntactic defaults#24549
Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
Followup: It's because #22995 wasn't in 2.8. 😄 |
mhegazy
approved these changes
Jun 1, 2018
Contributor
|
Please port to release-2.9 as well. |
weswigham
added a commit
to weswigham/TypeScript
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 1, 2018
weswigham
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 1, 2018
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
It was omitted in the original list of possible syntactic default declarations (things that indicate a declaration file definitely refers to a module). I can't imagine why it'd only break in 2.9 though, and not 2.8 - perhaps
resolveExportByNamewas mistakenly resolving the alias before, or the symbol was otherwise mismanaged and masked the issue? I kinda wanna bisect just to see what triggered the change.Fixes #24528