Remarks about module import

ihab.awad at ihab.awad at
Mon Aug 18 17:28:10 PDT 2008

Fwiw --

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 4:55 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
>> 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.

In my proposal, what I'm calling "importModule" needs to be a special
form if it is to be able to insert bindings into the lexical scope in
which it is called. Everything else can be done with just plain old
function calls. Whether or not it *should* is a whole 'nother ball of
wax of a different color.

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

Any given instantiation of a module is always vulnerable in diverse
and sundry ways to its importer. Whether my importer changed my
bindings for the module loading mechanism is the least of my worries
if I'm importing all the rest of my channels to the outside world from


Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA

More information about the Es-discuss mailing list