Thanks in general, On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:23 PM, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote: >> * there should be cleaner syntax for destructuring a >> loaded module. Preferably whether a module is rebound >> or loaded should be orthogonal to the destructuring >> syntax. Sugar. > > I'm not sure I know what you're looking for here.
I'll keep quiet until I've got an idea. > 1. I'd rather have a module system without import A.* then > no module system at all. And I would rather have module system with import A.* than no module system at all. Seems like every time the issue comes up, a different consensus is reached. The same voter dynamics are probably why "function" declarations will never be abbreviated. Difficult to agree; easy to live with disagreement. >> * we should consider a way to link one loader to another, >> such that a loader, for example a package loader, can be >> mapped responsibility for all modules in a subtree of the >> MRL name space without having to communicate exclusively >> in source strings. > > IIUC, this might already be achievable with the load hook > (the function passed to the ModuleLoader constructor). The > latter can make whatever decisions it wants about how to > handle any given MRL. And it avoids having to over-specify > MRL's. (We may end up needing to specify more of MRL's > anyway, but I'd prefer to do no more than necessary.) The only thing that appears to be missing is the ability to share an opaque object representing a pre-compiled module. I believe Brendan in the past has mentioned that this kind of problem can be solved behind the scenes, so it's certainly not critical. Kris Kowal _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
