Kris Kowal wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote: >> On May 8, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Kris Kowal wrote: >>> "(function (require, exports) {" + text + "/**/\n}" >> Nit-picking a bit on names: require : provide :: import : export -- so >> mixing require and export mixes metaphors. Never stopped me ;-). > > I agree about mixing metaphors. The befuddlement of start : stop :: > begin : end is one that bothers me a lot. The notion is to desugar > "import" and "export" to these two facets, importing and exporting. > imports : exports would be proper, but doesn't read well in code. The > reason for using the term "exports" is to ease migration, since: > > exports.a = function a() {}; > > Is easy to transform textually to: > > export a = function a() {}; > > So, I'm inclined to stick with "exports" instead of "provide". The > metaphor would be complete if we used "imports(id)" or "import(id)". > Since "import" is a keyword, it would not be available for the > desugarred syntax.
Neither "import" nor "export" are ES3 or ES5 keywords. However, both are context-dependent keywords in Mozilla JavaScript: <https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference/Statements/import> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Core_JavaScript_1.5_Reference/Statements/export> I don't know whether any future 'import' or 'export' syntax could be made not to collide with the Mozilla extensions. > Perhaps I'm behind on the times, but I'm under the impression that > presently the behavior of this function "foo" declaration has no > standard behavior: > > (function () { > function foo() { > } > })(); No, that is perfectly standard (and implemented correctly cross-browser). The body of the outer function is a sequence of SourceElements, which allows a FunctionDeclaration. 'foo' is bound only within the outer function's scope. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
