ESM default imports when using @scope

Playground: https://rescript-lang.org/try?version=v12.0.0-beta.12&module=esmodule&code=LYewJgrgNgpgBAWXARjgXjgbwFBzgFwE8AHefXOAAVElgAoAiG5BgSjhgA98YAnAOwCGUAgC4C6OAzAwAZoOj4GFSgGcY-MFVUBjEKUac2HbnyEjZ-cXXwAaOAEt++dmgB8cCPwf5JDS8p4sL6WkpY29gD6rNgAvtjYNNDwSGAATJI4eNTgyYw0acZqegaMMvKKDPYMRqzsXDwCwnCW4k6+7p7eHVIBFMEt-GH8cdhAA

module Mod1 = {
  type t
  @module("mod1") external t: t = "default"
  @send @scope("x") external fn: (t, int) => unit = "fn"
  let fn = fn(t, _)
}

module Mod2 = {
  @module("mod2") @scope(("default", "x")) external fn: int => unit = "fn"
  let fn = fn
}

Using @scope results in a namespace import instead of a default import:

import Mod1 from "mod1";
import * as Mod2 from "mod2";

This shouldn't effect modern tree shakers, but I've noticed tooling, like linters, can be less effective.

Inizia con l’esempio Playground collegato e confronta gli import generati per Mod1 e Mod2 quando viene usato @scope. Segui il percorso del compilatore che gestisce gli import di moduli con scope, quindi verifica che i casi interessati di default-import mantengano i default imports invece di emettere namespace imports.