On Nov 24, 2011, at 7:37 AM, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 24/11/2011 16:04, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt a écrit :
>> You can't do the following:
>>
>> import {new, delete} from "@reflect";
>>
>> because you can't bind `new' and `delete'. Even if this were allowed,
>> then `new(...)' would still be a syntax error.
> Oh ok... It actually is more an issue of destructuring than modules
> themselves.
Sort of. It's not even really technically a problem with destructuring; we
could allow that, but it would be useless, because you'd never be able to refer
to them.
> Interestingly, it means that as soon as we have the module syntax out
> there, there will be pretty much no way to add a new reserved keyword
> (ever?), because someone may be using the identifier and adding the
> reserved keyword would break the module import.
This has nothing to do with modules. Adding a reserved word is *always*
backwards-incompatible because someone could already be using it as a variable.
Modules don't change this situation at all.
> "import Reflect from "@reflect""
Almost.
module Reflect from "@reflect";
You only use "import" to pull out exports from inside a module. (We've been
experimenting with alternative syntaxes, btw. I'll report back on that soon.)
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
