import script --> .esm
matthewwrobb at gmail.com
Wed Sep 10 08:44:58 PDT 2014
Personally I have felt this way for a long time as well. I think `.esm` is
somewhat confusing since most js developers don't really think about it as
EcmaScript. I would think you could just as easily do `.jsm` but this also
suggests that files of this alternate should be served with a different
- Matthew Robb
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:30 AM, John Barton <johnjbarton at google.com>
> A couple of months ago I tried out the suggestion by Yehuda Katz to use
> import syntax with special module specifiers to mean parse-as-script, do
> evaluate but do not produce a module. The implementation worked well and
> now I want to put a version of this idea into Traceur.
> As soon as I started I ran it issues with the name. Obviously "legacy:" is
> ambiguous. "script:" looks like a URL, which I suppose was intended, but
> then we get into URLs in URLs. Furthermore, the URL scheme is very
> cumbersome with a filesystem, you have to have some side-table or algorithm
> to match URLs to directories or filenames.
> I implemented postfix ",script", but that sure looks like an extension.
> Which is exactly what the semantics are: a file with a different datatype
> needing different processing. So it seems to me that the most honest naming
> would be some thing like ".ess".
> I would just implement that solution but I proposed a similar idea a while
> back to Traceur team I got a lot of pushback along the lines of "JS is one
> language". Since then several Traceur users have asked for support to a
> non ".js" extension for loading modules, to be able to separate existing JS
> code in .js files from new module code in files marked with a different
> extension. Within Traceur's (mostly es6) code we have resorted to implicit
> marking-by-directory ("All code in src/node is script, not module") or with
> the wonderful extension of ".module.js" to mean "all the other files are
> script, but this one is module". So it's JS-is-one-language with two
> incompatible, unmentionable dialects ;-).
> Finally, naming modules as .js and ES6 Scripts as .ess has the weird
> result that ES5 scripts (in .js files) would be processed as ES6 modules.
> That seems dumb. So naming the new things, modules, with a new extension
> makes more sense. ".esm" seems like a obvious choice.
> I know this may not seem to be the most exalted of topics for
> standardization but the current choice of post-pending '.js' has real
> consequences for developers. Please consider this issue.
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Yehuda Katz <wycats at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You could imagine a loader plugin that enabled:
>> import "legacy:foo";
>> Which would evaluate the module in a script context.
>> Yehuda Katz
>> (ph) 718.877.1325
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss