May 21, 22, 23 TC39 Meeting Notes
dmitry.soshnikov at gmail.com
Mon Jun 3 14:32:11 PDT 2013
I see. Yeah.. it looks at least weird (even if not lexical, which, yeah --
bad, why still ugly string names?), and I agree it could lead to a
fundamental mistake since will stick for years until ES7.
Thanks for the original thread, will take a detailed look, but from the
first pass it seems I agree with what you're saying there.
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
> >> modules”.
> >> STH: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:modules
> >> STH: Wiki is up to date with the current proposal. Spec is “wiki
> >> Jason Orendorff of Mozilla has worked on flushing out semantic issues.
> >> 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 --
> > 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:
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss