> Sorry for the slow reply -- was sick....
No worries-- hope you're feeling better.
> Years of PL research and experience have demonstrated that explicit linking
> tends to be unwieldy and inconvenient.
>
> That needs to be added to my reading list. Cite away! :)
ML is dead; what more evidence do you need? ;)
Really, though, the research literature on modules is enormous. I don't have
the time or inclination to provide a full bibliography. Personally, I've worked
with several advanced, explicitly-linked module systems, including ML functors
and PLT Scheme units.
> With concise object literals, would that not be:
>
> module Even = load 'even.js' with { Odd };
> module Odd = load 'odd.js' with { Even };
Possibly, depending on whether you want to present modules to themselves as
well.
But really, I've seen it before: these kinds of specification languages for
module graphs spin out of control. You'll wish you had the ability to abstract
the thing on the RHS of "with" -- and then you'll have to introduce the
complexity of compile-time bindings of module graphs, and figure out how to
shoe-horn those into the existing syntax and semantics. Or, you'll hold the
line and force programmers to keep writing out the full module graph over and
over again, in which case they just won't ever use modules at all.
> But seriously: I am not *necessarily* suggesting explicit linking (however
> defined). I am pointing out the necessary consequences of a dangerous design
> that promises more than it can deliver.
You've not demonstrated that.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
