Fwiw -- On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Brendan Eich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 18, 2008, at 4:55 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: >> 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.
In my proposal, what I'm calling "importModule" needs to be a special form if it is to be able to insert bindings into the lexical scope in which it is called. Everything else can be done with just plain old function calls. Whether or not it *should* is a whole 'nother ball of wax of a different color. > What if I change your bindings for module and provide? (Maybe I > can't; please explain why not.) Any given instantiation of a module is always vulnerable in diverse and sundry ways to its importer. Whether my importer changed my bindings for the module loading mechanism is the least of my worries if I'm importing all the rest of my channels to the outside world from it. Ihab -- Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
