How to modify the scope chain without `with` ?

[/#!/JoePea]

/#!/JoePea
On Feb 16, 2016 9:38 AM, "Coroutines" <coroutines at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:16 AM, /#!/JoePea <joe at trusktr.io> wrote:
> > /#!/JoePea
> > On Feb 16, 2016 9:13 AM, "/#!/JoePea" <joe at trusktr.io> wrote:
> >>
> >> Seems like changing the global could lead to problems where a developer
> >> might assumes certain globals but hey
> >
> > I meant: "but have" different ones. Importing things explicitly into
modules
> > (instead of (inherited) globals) helps better understand the
requirements of
> > a given piece of code imo.
> >
> >> different ones, which imho could make the use of globals even messier.
I
> >> imagine you would like Angular's $scope inheritance, which is sort of
like
> >> what you want
> >> (https://github.com/angular/angular.js/wiki/Understanding-Scopes).
>
> I was just thinking about the `import` we gained in ES6.  In Perl and
> Python you might have functions imported directly into the global
> scope (of the current context) - so that it's easier to just write the
> function name without the short reference you imported it in as:
>
> cos(PI) vs Math.cos(Math.PI)  etc...

You could

```js
let {cos, PI} = Math

console.log(cos(PI))
```

>
> I was simply thinking it could give you the ability to choose how you
> prefer to write that.  If you're not using several modules and the
> code you're writing is quite focused in one area it might look cleaner
> (less redundant) to import Math and have all its functions be
> accessible as "globals".  If you are writing code that ties together
> functions from Math, fs, and tls modules (for some reason??) it would
> make sense to do the existing:
>
> var fs = require('fs');
> var tls = require('tls');
> ...
>
> Anyway, if we had control over the global scope/context/Object, it
> would allow you to make these design decisions in an effort to write
> code that I would sometimes view as cleaner.  What I think is
> important is that you could have your existing scope inherit from the
> "first" global scope, but when you assign to the current global scope
> it is set there.  Your modifications don't extend globally to the rest
> of the project.  Also if you want to isolate your current scope from
> the global scope you don't have to have one inherit from the other -
> you can break it's prototype (or never form it).  Again, as the other
> guy pointed out - it's not a complete or even marginally safe
> "sandbox" but all in all I think it's something we should have control
> over if we want to simplfy how modules are created (for one) without
> polluting the existing global scope/Object.
>
> My responses are a bit wordy/disorganized...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20160216/9e099388/attachment-0001.html>