Remarks about module import

Brendan Eich brendan at
Mon Aug 18 17:13:49 PDT 2008

On Aug 18, 2008, at 4:55 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:

> I really like the general approach and the simplicity of Ihab's  
> proposal.
> Also I strongly agree that a module should *not* implicitly capture
> the lexical scope in which it is imported.

I don't think anyone proposed any such thing. Do you?

> I'm not sure why 'provide' needs new syntax, though.

Syntax is (a) often good UI; (b) special form expression where  
there's no "library" way to say what the special form says.

Why should everything be lambda-coded?

What if I change your bindings for module and provide? (Maybe I  
can't; please explain why not.)

I'm not being snarky (or not merely ;-). The pre-Harmony extreme of  
"no new syntax, ever" is dead. Asking whether new syntax pays for  
itself is ok, but the question becomes vacuous when the only  
demonstration against new syntax begs questions about usability and  


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list