dynamic import() polyfill + question

[Bradley Meck]

Could be several reasons, it could be exporting a counter/log that changes
over time.

It could be something that is being mocked/spied upon.

It could be part of a circular dependency and so the modules do get a hold
of eachother without finishing evaluation.

It could be that it lazily/async populates its exports due to costs.

It could be that it is relying upon context to determine if something
should be exported (debug flag etc.)

Probably plenty more reasons.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:

> > a Promise cannot change value over time, unlike a live binding.
>
> when is a module that changes values and without any notification
> desirable?
>
> I cannot think about a single use case for wanting that: it's not usable
> from within the module, it won't be usable outside unless checked via ...
> an interval ?
>
> The main point here is that asynchronous import might also inevitably mean
> asynchronous exports.
>
> Early access to unusable modules doesn't seem a real-world solution to me.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Bradley Meck <bradley.meck at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have been thinking about this some, I do think there is something here,
>> but am not sure it warrants any changes. Exporting asynchronously doesn't
>> provide any coordination point so the general idea is to export a Promise,
>> but a Promise cannot change value over time, unlike a live binding. So, a
>> more appropriate way might be to export a "ready" binding that is a
>> Promise. Without some kind of async coordination like a `.then()`-able you
>> would also suffer from `undefined` being a possible initialized and
>> uninitialized value.
>>
>> ```
>> let later;
>> export {later};
>> export const ready = someAsyncWork().then(v => later = v);
>> ```
>>
>> This does still mean that `later` can be accessed before it is ready, in
>> my opinion somewhat against the idea of a TDZ wanting to wait for access to
>> be ready.
>>
>> I would be interested in something like:
>>
>> ```
>> async let later;
>> export {later};
>> export const ready = someAsyncWork().then(v => later = v);
>> ```
>>
>> That preserves the TDZ until assignment. Or, something that wraps `later`
>> in a non-promise `.then()`-able that `import` understands and can unwrap to
>> a live binding.
>>
>> All of that said, I am not sure this specific of a use warrants language
>> changes as I can think of problems with the ideas I have proposed as well.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Benoit Marchant <marchant at mac.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I really like that idea
>>>
>>> On Apr 21, 2017, at 08:22, Andrea Giammarchi <
>>> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> nobody has any thought on this ?
>>>
>>> Maybe the following pattern would be just about enough to solve a
>>> generic asynchronous import/export ?
>>>
>>> ```js
>>> export default new Promise(async $export => {
>>>
>>>     const utils = await import('./utils.js').default;
>>>
>>>     $export({module: 'asynchronous', utils});
>>>
>>> });
>>> ```
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Andrea Giammarchi <
>>> andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even if unpolyfillable through simple `function import() {}`
>>>> declaration,
>>>> I've managed to create a polyfill/payground for the ESnext's dynamic
>>>> import() [1]
>>>>
>>>> This also made me wonder if there's any plan to provide a way to
>>>> asynchronously
>>>> export modules that depends on those that use asynchronous import.
>>>>
>>>> Since AFAIK modules have no top-level await, the only pattern I can see
>>>> right now
>>>> to import something asynchronous is the following one:
>>>>
>>>> ```js
>>>> // module ./js/c.js
>>>> export default Promise.all([
>>>>   import('./js/a.js'),
>>>>   import('./js/a.js')
>>>> ]).then([a, b] => {
>>>>   const module = {a, b, c() {}};
>>>>   return module;
>>>> });
>>>>
>>>> // module that uses ./js/c.js
>>>> import('./js/c.js').then(m => m.default).then(c => {
>>>>   c.a(); c.b(); c.c();
>>>> });
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> However, above boilerplate doesn't seem ideal compared with something
>>>> like the following:
>>>>
>>>> ```js
>>>> // module ./js/c.js
>>>> export default await Promise.all([
>>>>   import('./js/a.js'),
>>>>   import('./js/a.js')
>>>> ]).then([a, b] => {
>>>>   const module = {a, b, c() {}};
>>>>   return module;
>>>> });
>>>>
>>>> // module that uses ./js/c.js
>>>> import * as c from './js/c.js';
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> But again, AFAIK that's not possible.
>>>>
>>>> The clear advantage is that the module consumer wouldn't need to know,
>>>> or care,
>>>> if the loaded module depends on some dynamic, asynchronous, import,
>>>> meaning modules can be updated and eventually moved to async
>>>> transparently
>>>> for any module consumer.
>>>>
>>>> As summary, is any solution worth exploring/improving/fixing/planning?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Best Regards
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/WebReflection/import.js#importjs
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> es-discuss mailing list
>>> es-discuss at mozilla.org
>>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170421/3e214564/attachment.html>