Composition of Uncoordinated Working Sets of Modules
kris.kowal at cixar.com
Mon Jun 7 15:55:33 PDT 2010
Thanks in general,
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Herman <dherman at mozilla.com> wrote:
>> * there should be cleaner syntax for destructuring a
>> loaded module. Preferably whether a module is rebound
>> or loaded should be orthogonal to the destructuring
>> syntax. Sugar.
> I'm not sure I know what you're looking for here.
I'll keep quiet until I've got an idea.
> 1. I'd rather have a module system without import A.* then
> no module system at all.
And I would rather have module system with import A.* than
no module system at all. Seems like every time the issue
comes up, a different consensus is reached. The same voter
dynamics are probably why "function" declarations will never
be abbreviated. Difficult to agree; easy to live with
>> * we should consider a way to link one loader to another,
>> such that a loader, for example a package loader, can be
>> mapped responsibility for all modules in a subtree of the
>> MRL name space without having to communicate exclusively
>> in source strings.
> IIUC, this might already be achievable with the load hook
> (the function passed to the ModuleLoader constructor). The
> latter can make whatever decisions it wants about how to
> handle any given MRL. And it avoids having to over-specify
> MRL's. (We may end up needing to specify more of MRL's
> anyway, but I'd prefer to do no more than necessary.)
The only thing that appears to be missing is the ability to
share an opaque object representing a pre-compiled module.
I believe Brendan in the past has mentioned that this kind
of problem can be solved behind the scenes, so it's
certainly not critical.
More information about the es-discuss