May 21, 22, 23 TC39 Meeting Notes
samth at ccs.neu.edu
Tue Jun 4 06:54:25 PDT 2013
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Andreas Rossberg <rossberg at google.com> wrote:
> On 4 June 2013 15:31, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Kevin Smith <zenparsing at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> - The semantics of lexical modules are not really in dispute
>> This is not correct. Andreas, Dave, and I spend a lot of time working
>> on the semantics of lexical modules, and there are significant
>> difficulties. If you get rid of recursion, and if modules cannot be
>> exported from other modules, and then imported from, then things are
>> easier, but I don't think that's what we want.
> I think you are somewhat overstating the difficulties. The only real
> problem was in the intersection of "include *" and nested modules and
> recursion. We now have neither of the former two, so the problem
> wouldn't arise as things stand now. Even adding nested modules would
> not pose a problem (although it would make the static semantics
> somewhat more complicated).
Well, it's unclear to me exactly what semantics Kevin was proposing,
but the current system has "export * from ..." and this introduces
many of the same problems once you import and export modules.
And the complexity of the static semantics is what I'm trying to point
More information about the es-discuss