NodeJS's __filename/__dirname in ES6 Modules

Gil Tayar gil at
Sat Jan 21 16:42:50 UTC 2017


Makes total sense. So why not have Domenic's "import" be a real function
that comes from this "js:context", thus obviating the need for a new
JavaScript operator?

While I realize that "js:context" will a Node thing, we could have a
special import (e.g. import {...} from "js:system") that enables the system
to expose real functions, of which one is "dynamicImport" and others would
be "currentDir()" and "currentFile()".

In other words - Domenic exposed a real need, but it seems that this need
is more general, and not specific only to dynamic import, and should be
added to the spec as a special import, just like it may be in Node.

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 6:48 PM Bradley Meck <bradley.meck at> wrote:

> The current trend is towards the
> rewrite which does not have
> magic variables
> There are ideas about exposing the URL of the current ESM via something
> like
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Gil Tayar <gil at> wrote:
> While reading Dominic Denicola's spec for dynamic import() at
>, I read his rational for
> not having import be a regular function, but rather a "syntactic form". The
> idea is that import() needs to be "in the scope" of the current module, as
> it needs to resolve the module path it is given relative to the current
> module's.
> Thinking about it some more, I thought it would be a pity for import to be
> so "special", and asked myself whether there will be more features that
> will need to be "module-aware" like import().
> And there are! (I think...) - __filename and __dirname in NodeJS are
> exactly such features. Actually, anything passed to the function wrapping
> each NodeJS module is such a feature, but going over them, only __filename
> and __dirname are not immediately related to the module mechanism.
> So my question is this (and it is specifically addressed to the NodeJS
> implementors in the group): in NodeJS's implementation of ES6 modules, how
> will __dirname and __filename be implemented? Will there still be a
> function wrapper like in the current module implementation? Or will
> __dirname and __filename be a "syntactic form" like import()? Or something
> else?
> Thanks,
> Gil Tayar
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list