import.meta and TC39 process as a whole

[Naveen Chawla]

Thanks for the link! That means that `import` is already on the borderline
of the spec since it wants to be a function and object. `module` would
eliminate all confusion and restriction but as you said, only if passing it
around must be expressly disallowed - need an interested TC39 member to
weigh in

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 at 18:40 T.J. Crowder <tj.crowder at farsightsoftware.com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Naveen Chawla
> <naveen.chwl at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think it has to be an identifier, especially given proposals
> > like `meta`, dynamic functionality etc.
>
> There's a slight misunderstanding here about the term "identifier" that
> may be preventing your fully understanding what I'm saying. `import` isn't,
> and cannot be, an identifier, because it's a keyword. See the [Identifiers
> section][1] of the spec. This is the fundamental difference between
> `import` and `document` (or perhaps more properly [since `document` isn't a
> JavaScript thing], between `import` and, say, `undefined` or `Symbol`).
> Understanding the difference between an identifier and a keyword may help
> you understand better what I'm saying regarding why `module` *as an
> identifier* might be a problem.
>
> I'll leave the question of whether passing that identifier's value around
> would be a problem to people more familiar with the complexities of the
> import mechanisms. As I've said several times now: I *suspect* it's a
> problem, I don't *know* that it is.
>
> -- T.J. Crowder
>
> [1]:
> http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/8.0/index.html#sec-identifiers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170805/f427b6a0/attachment.html>