Minor questions on new module BNF

Yehuda Katz wycats at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 09:33:45 PDT 2013

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Domenic Denicola <
domenic at domenicdenicola.com> wrote:

> From: samth0 at gmail.com [mailto:samth0 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam
> Tobin-Hochstadt
> > The idea here is that modules will typically be written in files like
> "compiler/Lexer.js", where the starting grammar production *is*
> `ModuleBody`.
> Ah, that makes sense! It's a nice way of prohibiting `<script>export
> function foo() { }</script>` as well, assuming inline `<script>`
> corresponds to `Script`. It would be helpful to update the wiki with this,
> or more generally to show how this grammar will integrate with the rest of
> the grammar.
> > I would just write `import {} from "someModule";`
> That appears to be disallowed; I believe
>     "{" ImportSpecifier ("," ImportSpecifier)* ","? "}"
> requires at least one `ImportSpecifier`. (It's also sad and ugly; any
> reason not to allow `import "someModule";`?)

I've advocated for this in the past. I believe it should be allowed.

Separately, I would like this form to be specified as deferring execution
until bindings are explicitly imported (from another module), or a
synchronous `System.get` call is made.

This would make it possible to guarantee that a synchronous `System.get`
will succeed, without being forced to execute the module first.

> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20130603/25ea0204/attachment.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list