On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Irakli Gozalishvili <[email protected]> wrote:
> After looking at your posts, I do have a feeling that what you actually > trying to solve is not a namespacing but modules scope encapsulation. > Besides they way you're proposing to solve this is not really suits well for > the interpreted language. I would recommend you to look into commonjs, > (http://commonjs.org/, http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/Modules/) I think it > solves the problem nicely without extending language itself. One more > interesting to look at http://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2009/12/namespaces If you or someone can show me an example of CommonJS modules being used in a web page, it would be very beneficial to myself and many - and may very well invalidate my entire proposal. However, I would first need a chance to review a full, concrete example - just as everyone has been reviewing my proposal here. One point of my proposal that I'm unsure has received proper attention is that the type of namespacing I mentioned is already being used actively and increasingly online today - including in well-known libraries written by or with involvement from well-known JavaScript experts, such as Yahoo! UI (YUI) and jQuery. Even www.mozilla.org is already namespacing their JS code in "org.mozilla". Defining the exact method of the namespacing was not even meant to be part of my proposal. For example, "jQuery.*" vs. "com.jquery.*". However, they would all be supported by the proposed namespace function. Without repeating all of my previous replies and the original proposal, I still think that such a namespace function would be a great benefit, even more than the other additions that have been made in the recent JavaScript versions since 1.5. Maybe it doesn't belong in the core ECMAScript specification itself, but as a JavaScript extension. Maybe there is a better name for the function to use than "namespace", in case there is concern that "namespace" should potentially be reserved for use as a keyword or another purpose in the future. Another option to consider: Without necessarily proposing such a "namespace" function for inclusion into the base language, would there be a way to define / standardize that if a given named-function exists (whether it be "namespace", "createNS", etc.), that the API must be something similar to what has been described here? My proposal to have this standardized was so that "developer A" and "developer B" didn't both start to add "namespace" to their next greatest script library, where they are named the same but work differently / accept different arguments, etc. -- Mark A. Ziesemer www.ziesemer.com _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
