Module Execution Order

Kevin Smith zenparsing at gmail.com
Wed Apr 10 09:13:30 PDT 2013


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu>wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what prior critique you're referring to.
> >
> >
> > Quite a while ago, I pointed out that concatenation would be difficult
> with
> > nested modules, but I was operating under the assumption of interleaved
> > execution:  https://gist.github.com/zenparsing/3892979
>
> I think this transformation demonstrates why I prefer our current
> approach more than nested modules.  See my fork at
> https://gist.github.com/samth/5355676


The correct translation using nested modules (with the proper topological
execution order semantics), would be more like this:
https://gist.github.com/zenparsing/5355927

I don't particularly want to have this discussion yet another time,
>

I don't remember having this discussion on es-discuss.  Not that it's a
requirement or anything...


> but (a) lexical modules as in our original design did not serve all
> the required use cases
>

Given that bundling is possible with nested modules, I'm not sure what
other use cases `module "name"` is serving.  I'll look back through the use
case presentation, though.

{ Kevin }
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130410/ef8fc9d5/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list