May 21, 22, 23 TC39 Meeting Notes

Yehuda Katz wycats at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 09:39:50 PDT 2013


On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com>wrote:

> On 2 June 2013 22:19, Dmitry Soshnikov <dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 4.10 Modules
> >>
> >> STH: Progress since last meeting. Discuss “module naming”, “naming
> standard
> >> modules”.
> >> STH: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:modules
> >> STH: Wiki is up to date with the current proposal. Spec is “wiki
> complete”.
> >> Jason Orendorff of Mozilla has worked on flushing out semantic issues.
> Moz
> >> is implementinb parsing of modules.
> >> STH: Syntax: Made a couple of changes.
> >> A. To support anonymous exports
> >>
> >>   export default expr;
> >>
> >>   import $ from ‘jquery’;  // imports default anonymous export
> >
> > I missed that, and current wiki draft doesn't explain it either, but --
> what
> > was a rationale of using string literals on imports, and, worth, also for
> > module names at define?
>
> Modules won't have lexical scope, they will just be named by (more or
> less) arbitrary strings in a single (per-loader) global name space.
> That was a change made last November, and some of us (well, me, in
> particular) have disagreed with it ever since. You can read up on most
> of the pro & con arguments in the recent monster thread starting here:
>
> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2013-April/030165.html
>
> FWIW, I still think this is a fundamental mistake, but it is now
> pretty much set in stone. Hopefully, we'll get proper lexical scoping
> in ES7.
>

I'm personally in favor of getting lexical scope in ES7, and retrofitting
the current module declarations so that they desugar into the creation of a
lexical module and a declarative registration of that module in the
registry.

```
module "foo" {

}

// would be equivalent to something like

module <gensym> {

}

export module <gensym> as "foo";
```

We discussed this briefly at the last meeting on a whiteboard. It requires
some more thought, and I'd love to have you help work on something like
this for ES7.

I'm glad that we came to a (grudging) consensus on moving forward with the
current ES6 proposal for ES6, with a clear idea on where to start for ES7.


> /Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ec652b16/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list