Gabe Johnson

@disnet if we took care of syntax templates with a combination of reader macros and syntactic extensions, we could do this: ``` js syntax m = ctx => { return...

😝 My point is that if you just require interpolating if you're nesting syntax templates you can avoid any special syntax and just parallel the syntax used by template literals...

Something I just thought of. Which context does the innermost `ctx` refer to in my scheme?

So for default imports we would have: ```js // export.js export default syntax(ctx) { } //-------------------------- // import.js import whateverNameIWant from './export.js'; ``` In the importing file I can now...

Looks like they're at least thinking of adding it. See the bottom of https://flowtype.org/blog/2015/02/18/Import-Types.html Looks like your first example. Personally I like ``` syntax m (ctx) { } ``` But...

@disnet I think this is going to require an upgrade to `shift-*`. It doesn't support `shift-parser` < 4.0

To be clear, this is only an issue b/c version mismatch. If we could use a new version of `shift-reducer` just w/ the fuzzer then we would be fine.

@michaelficarra shift-codegen 4.0.0 is a top-level dependency. shift-fuzzer would requires version >= 5. The error I encountered re shift-parser was due to it being a dependency of shift-codegen (and node...

@disnet are you thinking just matching what Babylon does (maybe more granular `TypeAnnotation` node types)?

Sorry @roman01la, I thought I had responded to you. It would require extending the default readtable. Please see #687.