When reading Dave's post on "Static module resolution" [1], the section on "Future-compatibility for macros" struck me as a case where users/proponents of different module systems seem to be talking past each other. All agree that there is an important feature, but the approaches differ so much that the common purpose may not be obvious.
- ES modules: compile-time imports allow for syntax import, once syntax declarations/exports/macros are introduced - node modules: require.extensions [2] (long time undocumented) allows registering alternative loaders for preprocessing alternative syntax (coffeescript, streamline, ..) - require.js/AMD: loader plugins allow to handle alternative resource formats as module dependencies [3,4] I just wanted to make sure that participants in this discussion are aware of these similarities. [4] does briefly compare AMD's loader plugins with node's require.extensions. Btw: for all the usefulness of plugins, they do seem to express syntax dependencies (which plugin to use) differently than code dependencies (which modules to load). Claus http://clausreinke.github.com/ [1] http://calculist.org/blog/2012/06/29/static-module-resolution/ [2] http://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/globals.html#globals_require_extensions [3] http://www.sitepen.com/blog/2012/06/25/amd-the-definitive-source/ [4] http://tagneto.blogspot.ca/2012/06/es-modules-suggestions-for-improvement.html _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
