> Oh, but you probably meant that the module table form, besides being sugar,
> is written in a restricted language that cannot have effects other than to
> create module bindings -- cannot do document.write or
> document.createElementNS("script") or whatever. In that case we'd want
> type="harmony-module-table" or some such, and then such a script indeed would
> allow layout to proceed immediately, and not block rendering.
Yes, sorry for the mixup. I should've written something like:
<script type="harmony-module-configuration-table">
{ M1: "m1.js",
M2: "m2.js",
// ...
}
</script>
> Thinking about it more, simple modules let authors bundle things in .js
> files, and src them with scripts. That's almost enough. Anything more, we do
> not want to standardize prematurely.
Agreed.
> Simple modules are really about lexical scope all the way up, and guaranteed
> errors (early errors, even), and static code partitioning with information
> hiding, and of course the lexical-only module-binding namespace management.
Well put.
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
