[Jarred]

Import Attributes are a stage3 proposal which means it is very likely to become part of the language. It’s the last stage before becoming part of the language.

> Another failure I see is the fact that the "type" property is not meant to be used for this type of language augmentation, it's meant to describe the type of the file without inferring from the file extension

It sounds like you’re confusing Import Attributes with Import Assertions, which was the previous iteration of Import Attributes.

Interpretation of import attributes is host defined. For Import Assertions, that wasn’t true - they were intended never to impact runtime evaluation. That’s the difference with Import Attributes. Import Attributes do impact runtime evaluation.

[creatable]

What I specifically meant is that the "type" property can impact runtime evaluation as per the spec, however it's implied to be used specifically for impacting runtime evaluation based on a file's type. Say I have a module in a language that transpiles to JavaScript based off of the "type" property. In Bun, I would not be able to use any functions exported by it as a macro because the "type" property is being used for defining the module as a macro. That's the specific issue I have.

[spankalee]

Exactly. Import attributes are supposed to effect the imported module, not the importing module.

This turns what looks like a function call in the importer into something like macro expansion (it doesn't look like actual macros though).

[eyelidlessness]

I think this is mostly consistent in terms of effect. With any application of import attributes that affect the dependency, the dependent module could behave differently for any affected aspect it accesses.

The only inconsistency is that Bun is front loading some of these effects to the server/bundler runtime and effectively memoizing the equivalent behavior before it reaches a client. But it’s not doing that of its own volition, it’s doing it to address an explicit attribute in the source code.

The only way this would be a meaningful problem is if the explicit value has a chance of colliding with either existing code in the ecosystem (highly unlikely, no one is really using this syntax yet except perhaps in an equally experimental context), or some plausible pending standard (unless one was proposed in the last couple weeks, I’m pretty sure I can rule that out too).

I share other commenters’ lament that this is not a true macro solution (and I think it should actually just be renamed to something like comptime). But I don’t think this deserves the deviation-from-standards challenge it’s getting in this thread. And lest I come off as a Bun fanatic, I think I’m one of the people who more frequently questions potential Bun spec deviations when they come up on Twitter.

[DanHulton]

I mean, it looks like they support Import Assertions, too:

https://bun.sh/blog/bun-macros#how-it-works

So the worry about having legacy anti-spec things still seems pretty valid.

[unlog]

What about adding signals?