Thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood it as being replaceable with the current commonjs require.
Kam ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: kkasravi <[email protected]> Cc: es-discuss <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 9:18:58 AM Subject: Re: Module system strawpersons Hi Kam, My proposal is attempting to present two alternative ways to implement "require" on top of the "import" keyword. The first option, as you point out: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:13 AM, kkasravi <[email protected]> wrote: > Within the Layered systems, the wrapper require looks like > require('util/pointUtils') needs "require" itself to be recognized as a special form in the input language, which involves parsing the input code. The second form: > However the proposal also suggests that require could be > require(import 'util/pointUtils') does not, and as you point out: > Since import 'util/pointUtils' returns a Function Object and require needs a > string literal, I'm wonder how the second require (above) would work. the second "require" would not comply with the existing CommonJS "require", but would be close to it. Ihab -- Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
