Modules Question

[Kevin Smith]

Sweet - I was hoping that the module wouldn't have to name itself.

My next question has to do with bundling.  Let's say I want to bundle a.js
and b.js into a single file, with the exports of a.js providing the exports
of this bundled "thing".  I suppose I could wrap both of the individual
modules something like this:

module a { /* a.js text */ }
module b { /* b.js text */ }

export a; // ? Not sure about this one

But will the runtime know how to correctly resolve the (module b = "b.js";)
that comes from a.js?  Or will that declaration have to be rewritten?



On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:

> There's some flexibility built in to the system via module loaders. The
> "filesystem modules" example is hypothetical; it assumes a built-in module
> loader that maps files available on the filesystem to corresponding
> pre-defined, nested modules.
>
> On the web, you would do almost as you suggest:
>
> > // a.js
> > module a
> > {
> >     module b = "b.js";
> > }
>
> except that a.js doesn't name itself; it's named by the script that loads
> it:
>
>    // a.js
>    module b = "b.js";
>    ...
>
>    // b.js
>    ...
>
>    // project.html
>    ...
>    <script type="harmony">
>    module a = "a.js";
>    </script>
>
> Dave
>
> PS I will be updating the wiki pages soon to reflect some of the
> finer-grained details and tweaks I've made to the design based on my
> experience prototyping modules in Narcissus (
> http://github.com/mozilla/narcissus). I'll ping the list when the pages
> are updated.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20101228/56f958e5/attachment-0001.html>