Fwd: "delay" keyword
patrik.stutz at gmail.com
Thu Jul 5 08:19:40 PDT 2012
module thing. I tought that, since there already so much modules for
node.js it is pointless to ask them to change their module system, so that
node modules also could be used in the browser, so I asked you to give me a
But since Isaac is also unhappy, it is likely that he indeed would change
the module system of node.js, even if it would mean that all current
modules would be broken.
In fact, I'm happy with anything that will solve the current module hell.
If we get a built-in module system that node.js also will adopt I don't
need my delay keyword anymore.
BUT: interestingly, the import keyword also seems to be synchronous. So, I
think behind the scenes there still would have to be something like a
"delay" function to make it non-blocking. Or am I missing something?
2012/7/5 David Bruant <bruant.d at gmail.com>
> Le 05/07/2012 13:36, Patrik Stutz a écrit :
> For any features to be added to the language, nothing is really about
> opinion. It all start with use cases.
> Could you show something that 'delay' enables that is not possible
> Yes, I can. The reason and main use case why I'm requesting delay is,
> that I want be able to run node.js modules in the browser without any
> modification or trickery. I want be able to make a require function that
> is synchronous but does not block.
> Maybe that your use case demands a different module system than a new
> language-level concurrency construct. Have you heard about the module
> proposal? More interestingly, have you read Isaacs' recent post on the
> topic? http://blog.izs.me/post/25906678790/on-es-6-modules
> I particularly recommend reading the "Next..." section at the end.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss