465

I see that the following is fine:

const Tab = connect( mapState, mapDispatch )( Tabs );
export default Tab;

However, this is incorrect:

export default const Tab = connect( mapState, mapDispatch )( Tabs );

Yet this is fine:

export default Tab = connect( mapState, mapDispatch )( Tabs );

Can this be explained please why const is invalid with export default? Is it an unnecessary addition & anything declared as export default is presumed a const or such?

Kayote
  • 10,838
  • 17
  • 67
  • 123
  • 1
    https://esdiscuss.org/topic/why-is-export-default-var-a-1-invalid-syntax – Bergi Mar 28 '18 at 02:14
  • 2
    `export default Tab = connect( mapState, mapDispatch )( Tabs );` should be `export default connect( mapState, mapDispatch )( Tabs );`. You're exporting the result of the function call, not the variable Tab. – ThaJay Apr 05 '18 at 15:13
  • 2
    A const or let is required (and relevant) in the exporting module but irrelevant in the importing module, where the imported identifier is always read-only (cannot be assigned to). This still doesn't explain why the syntax of "export default" differs from non-default "export". – Denis Howe Nov 07 '18 at 15:51
  • Note: `export default Tab = ` is a syntax error, `Tab` is undefined. The only way this would be valid syntax is if you had assigned `Tab` to something via let or var before... e.g `let Tab; export default Tab = ...` which is not good practice. – Joe Seifi Aug 08 '20 at 15:20
  • It's not a syntax error, assigning to undefined variables is valid JS. But most likely undesired behavior. – riv Mar 28 '21 at 15:44

7 Answers7

367

const is like let, it is a LexicalDeclaration (VariableStatement, Declaration) used to define an identifier in your block.

You are trying to mix this with the default keyword, which expects a HoistableDeclaration, ClassDeclaration or AssignmentExpression to follow it.

Therefore it is a SyntaxError.


If you want to const something you need to provide the identifier and not use default.

export by itself accepts a VariableStatement or Declaration to its right.


The following is fineexport default Tab;

Tab becomes an AssignmentExpression as it's given the name default ?

export default Tab = connect( mapState, mapDispatch )( Tabs ); is fine

Here Tab = connect( mapState, mapDispatch )( Tabs ); is an AssignmentExpression.


Update: A different way to imagine the problem

If you're trying to conceptually understand this and the spec-reasoning above is not helping, think of it as "if default was a legal identifier and not a reserved token, what would be a different way to write export default Foo; and export default const Foo = 1; ?"

In this situation, the expanded way to write it would be

// pseudocode, this thought experiment is not valid JS

export default Foo;
// would be like
export const default = Foo;

export default const Foo = 1;
// would be like
export const default const Foo = 1;
// so would the following line make sense?
const bar const Foo = 1;

There is a valid argument the expansion should be something like

// pseudocode, this thought experiment is not valid JS

export default const Foo = 1;
// would be like
const Foo = 1;
export const default = Foo;

However, this then would become ambiguous per Sergey's comment, so it makes more sense to write this pattern explicitly instead.

Paul S.
  • 58,277
  • 8
  • 106
  • 120
  • 47
    The answer is how it is become an error. The question is still why? The one reason it prevent abuse of const in this way : export default const a=1, b=3, c=4; – Sergey Orlov Oct 02 '17 at 14:07
  • 8
    `"AFAIK the export in itself should not add anything to your current scope"` This is not so accurate, because `export const a = 1` adds `a` to your current context. And even with `export default` in case of classes, because `export default class MyClass {}` adds `MyClass` to your current context as well. – Ernesto Jan 17 '18 at 13:48
  • 4
    @SergeyOrlov agree that this explains how this generates an error, but sheds little light as to why it's necessary. Although I'm not sure that's the single reason, you should probably post that as a separate answer, not a comment to this one. – Herick Feb 07 '18 at 17:20
  • If I do the following: `let a; export default a;` and then update the variable a when it already has been imported into another module, why does the export default variable not update? – basickarl Nov 07 '19 at 13:33
  • My understanding is, for short, you can write `const foo = function bar() {}` and also `const Foo = class Bar {}`, but not `const foo = const bar = 1`. Same for `export default`, it's just like `const foo =`. – zetavg Mar 24 '20 at 02:02
  • 1
    The answer is for another question. Original question is unanswered. – Pavel1114 Jan 06 '21 at 16:08
  • I'm with @Pavel1114 -- this answers why the parser rejects it as a syntax error, but does not explain _why the grammar was designed to prevent `export default const ...`_, a construct which seems to make perfect sense despite being illegal. I highly doubt that @Kayote was asking about the parser. – JakeRobb Mar 18 '21 at 21:01
  • @JakeRobb If you need a different way of thinking about it, consider `export default` like sugar for `export const default =`, so writing `export default const foo = bar;` would be equivalent to `export const default = const foo = bar;`, which wouldn't make sense as `x y` is a syntax error and `const` is a token which can't be an identifier so also would be an error (you cant `const const = 1;`) – Paul S. Mar 26 '21 at 12:09
58

You can also do something like this if you want to export default a const/let, instead of

const MyComponent = ({ attr1, attr2 }) => (<p>Now Export On other Line</p>);
export default MyComponent

You can do something like this, which I do not like personally.

let MyComponent;
export default MyComponent = ({ }) => (<p>Now Export On SameLine</p>);
Adeel Imran
  • 8,751
  • 5
  • 45
  • 71
  • 2
    Yep, that’d work — but it feels _so wrong_ that I actually find myself wishing you hadn’t posted it. Somebody’s going to copy and paste that into their source code somewhere! – JakeRobb Mar 26 '21 at 12:14
23

If the component name is explained in the file name MyComponent.js, just don't name the component, keeps code slim.

import React from 'react'

export default (props) =>
    <div id='static-page-template'>
        {props.children}
    </div>

Update: Since this labels it as unknown in stack tracing, it isn't recommended

Update 2: I have only been using the es5 version below since it keeps names on stack traces and react dev tools.

import React from 'react'

export default function MyComponent(props) {
    return (<div id='static-page-template'>
        {props.children}
    </div>)
}
Kevin Danikowski
  • 2,444
  • 1
  • 23
  • 42
  • 16
    Didn't you have issues with stacktraces ? For me it's causing displaying `Unknown` everywhere where is unnamed default export – Jurosh May 12 '18 at 20:12
  • @Jurosh Yes it will display that way because it isn't named, so the component must be named "Unknown" – Kevin Danikowski May 13 '18 at 20:18
  • 4
    While this works, without a doubt it's something every react developer outside of toy application development should strive to _avoid_ at all costs. – li x Nov 13 '19 at 12:33
  • 1
    @lix I couldn't understand why one should avoid using this syntax. Would you please explain or share a link ? Thanks. – sudip Dec 18 '19 at 04:48
  • 3
    @sudip Creating a component with no name is not good for the react component model and rendering. – li x Dec 21 '19 at 22:05
  • 1
    Looks clean however, also Dan Abramov suggests that we should use proper function/const names in component declaration: https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/1255229440860262400 ;) "- will show up as Anonymous in stack traces - will show up as Unknown in DevTools - won't be checked by React-specific lint rules - won't work with some features like Fast Refresh" – Zoltan May 10 '20 at 10:43
  • I'm a fan of `export default function MyComponent(props) {` – JakeRobb Mar 18 '21 at 21:02
10

The answer shared by Paul is the best one. To expand more,

There can be only one default export per file. Whereas there can be more than one const exports. The default variable can be imported with any name, whereas const variable can be imported with it's particular name.

var message2 = 'I am exported';
export default message2;
export const message = 'I am also exported'

At the imports side we need to import it like this:

import { message } from './test';

or

import message from './test';

With the first import, the const variable is imported whereas, with the second one, the default one will be imported.

flaxel
  • 2,706
  • 4
  • 9
  • 22
GingerBeer
  • 703
  • 8
  • 10
  • Not sure if this is a typo but default export variable is `message2` and so it should be `import message2 from './test';`. Just to clarify further - only named exports can use curly braces ({}). Since there can only be one default export per module file, importing default vars doesn't require them as in importing `message2`. – StackUndefined Mar 28 '21 at 07:10
9

Paul's answer is the one you're looking for. However, as a practical matter, I think you may be interested in the pattern I've been using in my own React+Redux apps.

Here's a stripped-down example from one of my routes, showing how you can define your component and export it as default with a single statement:

import React from 'react';
import { connect } from 'react-redux';

@connect((state, props) => ({
    appVersion: state.appVersion
    // other scene props, calculated from app state & route props
}))
export default class SceneName extends React.Component { /* ... */ }

(Note: I use the term "Scene" for the top-level component of any route).

I hope this is helpful. I think it's much cleaner-looking than the conventional connect( mapState, mapDispatch )( BareComponent )

Tom
  • 4,835
  • 3
  • 35
  • 49
  • Too bad decorators can't seem to be used on a function component – Eric Kim Dec 19 '18 at 19:05
  • @EricKim Bummer. But, it's worth bearing in mind that the decorator spec isn't final yet. Maybe functional components can't be decorated using the "legacy" decorator, but I don't know if that's due to a limitation of the legacy design, or because the implementation of legacy decorators is incomplete or buggy. FWIW: `@connect` is the only decorator I use, I only use it with components that are attached to a redux store, almost every one of those is a "route," and almost every route should have state (and therefore cannot be a pure function). – Tom Dec 20 '18 at 23:03
3

default is basically const someVariableName

You don't need a named identifier because it's the default export for the file and you can name it whatever you want when you import it, so default is just condensing the variable assignment into a single keyword.

Mani Gandham
  • 5,581
  • 43
  • 54
-7

To me this is just one of many idiosyncracies (emphasis on the idio(t) ) of typescript that causes people to pull out their hair and curse the developers. Maybe they could work on coming up with more understandable error messages.

Big Dog
  • 291
  • 3
  • 4