Module system strawpersons
kamkasravi at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 15 10:26:23 PST 2010
Thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood it as being replaceable with the current commonjs require.
From: "ihab.awad at gmail.com" <ihab.awad at gmail.com>
To: kkasravi <kkasravi at me.com>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 9:18:58 AM
Subject: Re: Module system strawpersons
My proposal is attempting to present two alternative ways to implement
"require" on top of the "import" keyword. The first option, as you
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:13 AM, kkasravi <kkasravi at me.com> wrote:
> Within the Layered systems, the wrapper require looks like
needs "require" itself to be recognized as a special form in the input
language, which involves parsing the input code. The second form:
> However the proposal also suggests that require could be
> require(import 'util/pointUtils')
does not, and as you point out:
> Since import 'util/pointUtils' returns a Function Object and require needs a
> string literal, I'm wonder how the second require (above) would work.
the second "require" would not comply with the existing CommonJS
"require", but would be close to it.
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss