Hi Vassily, thanks for the feedback.
> It should be
>
> <script type="harmony">
>
> // import everything as Math
> import "Math";
>
> alert("2π = " + Math.sum(Math.pi, Math.pi));
>
> </script>
This is already possible with the `import "Math" as Math' form (which
incidentally can easily be compiled to be exactly as efficient). Leaving the
"as Math" part implicit doesn't work if the module specifier is not
syntactically an identifier:
import "@#$!";
@#$!.mumble("grunch")
> We already have "with" for polluting local namespace,
> and short syntax for such polluting doesn't feel right.
That's an inappropriate comparison, for two critical reasons. First: `with'
*dynamically* changes the environment, so it destroys lexical scope, whereas
when you import everything from a second-class module, it is still possible to
know statically what bindings are in scope. Second: there's no contention,
since it's a static error to import two modules that bind the same name. So
conflicts are ruled out, and there's no ambiguity in a valid program.
Now, I recognize that some people feel that stylistically the "import
everything" approach is bad /style/, and that programmers ought to list all
their imports explicitly. But at the same time, this is still a scripting
language, and it has to be convenient. There's a difference between advocating
a style and forcing it. And if it imposes too heavy a burden you get nasty
unintended consequences (e.g., nobody uses modules at all).
> Some longer syntax would be better, e.g.
>
> <script type="harmony">
>
> // import everything
> import "Math" as this;
>
> alert("2π = " + sum(pi, pi));
>
> </script>
That would only work with at most one module.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
