On Aug 18, 2008, at 4:55 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: > I really like the general approach and the simplicity of Ihab's > proposal. > Also I strongly agree that a module should *not* implicitly capture > the lexical scope in which it is imported.
I don't think anyone proposed any such thing. Do you? > I'm not sure why 'provide' needs new syntax, though. Syntax is (a) often good UI; (b) special form expression where there's no "library" way to say what the special form says. Why should everything be lambda-coded? What if I change your bindings for module and provide? (Maybe I can't; please explain why not.) I'm not being snarky (or not merely ;-). The pre-Harmony extreme of "no new syntax, ever" is dead. Asking whether new syntax pays for itself is ok, but the question becomes vacuous when the only demonstration against new syntax begs questions about usability and integrity. /be > _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
