Minimal Module System Proposal

[Brendan Eich]

Kevin Smith wrote:
>
>     Thanks, but let's not jump to any conclusions. I'm the champion of
>     modules and wasn't even able to be a part of the discussion for
>     family reasons. We can't make any judgment about the status of
>     modules, or plans for reacting to the status of modules, before
>     I've had a chance to be a part of the conversation.
>
>
>  +1 and congrats (I'm slinging a babe right now ; )
>
> I'm confident that modules will make it - in my mind ES6 will fail if 
> not.  They are certainly more important than proxies and private 
> names, and the sooner we coalesce around the syntax, the better 
> everyone will feel.  IMO, your previous proposal was almost right on. 
>  e.g.
>
> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:modules&rev=1332511079 
> <http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:modules&rev=1332511079>
> https://gist.github.com/khs4473/4382710
>
> I think we need to have a knock-down-drag-out discussion about URL and 
> loader semantics.  ; )

Question about the linked wiki page rev:


      Variant B: "module =" syntax

Is that the variant you favor?

/be