Modules: Name capture

ihab.awad at ihab.awad at
Wed Jun 2 11:51:01 PDT 2010

Hi Dave,

We are having two discussions here:

* Discussion of the relative merits of explicit linking in its various
forms; and

* Discussion of the specifics of the current proposal for implicit linking,
and alternatives *holding fixed* the initial condition that implicit linking
is a desideratum.

I'm mostly interested in the second discussion, but I do not wish to let
slip by some important distinctions regarding the first. As such, I will
respond to the first here, and to the second in a separate email.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, David Herman <dherman at> wrote:

> I don't have the time or inclination to provide a full bibliography.

I consider your argument withdrawn, then.

> Personally, I've worked with several advanced, explicitly-linked module
> systems, including ML functors and PLT Scheme units.

I'd be interested to hear more about your experience.

>     module Even = load 'even.js' with { Odd };
>     module Odd = load 'odd.js' with { Even };
> Possibly, depending on whether you want to present modules to themselves as
> well.

As I believe we discussed in our most recent f2f, it is possible to provide
modular code with access to its own reified module instance via some
distinguished symbol (e.g., "this" at the top level). And of course, modular
code always has direct individual access to its own exports.

As recast, therefore, the example introduces Odd to "even.js" and Even to
"odd.js". It's pretty minimal.


Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list