simple modules

ihab.awad at ihab.awad at
Tue Feb 2 14:07:32 PST 2010

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Kris Kowal <kris.kowal at> wrote:
> Would someone mind posting a summary of the current positions of the
> active participants of this discussion, perhaps contrasting the
> proposals?

The current positions are mostly in agreement.

Sam and Dave's proposal is similar to the require() of CommonJS:
within what they call a Context (= CommonJS sandbox), module instance
are shared.

Sam's suggestion is that a Context can be constructed which accepts
only transitively immutable modules. This would mean that the
ambiently available modules are powerless, which means they can be
used in an ocap language manner. This Context would be what SES
programmers would use.

This seems to be the winning proposal right now, since it does not
overload any special forms yet allows both require()-style and
capability language style programming.

I think there are details of how modules are named and identified that
I, for one, need to think about, but there is far more flexibility to
discuss these. The basics seem to be solid.


Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA

More information about the es-discuss mailing list