On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I'm not sure what prior critique you're referring to. >> > >> > >> > Quite a while ago, I pointed out that concatenation would be difficult >> > with >> > nested modules, but I was operating under the assumption of interleaved >> > execution: https://gist.github.com/zenparsing/3892979 >> >> I think this transformation demonstrates why I prefer our current >> approach more than nested modules. See my fork at >> https://gist.github.com/samth/5355676 > > > The correct translation using nested modules (with the proper topological > execution order semantics), would be more like this: > https://gist.github.com/zenparsing/5355927 > >> I don't particularly want to have this discussion yet another time, > > I don't remember having this discussion on es-discuss. Not that it's a > requirement or anything...
The meeting minutes contain some rather comprehensive notes on variants of this discussion. See https://github.com/rwldrn/tc39-notes/blob/master/es6/2012-11/nov-28.md#modules-update for an example. >> but (a) lexical modules as in our original design did not serve all >> the required use cases > > Given that bundling is possible with nested modules, I'm not sure what other > use cases `module "name"` is serving. I'll look back through the use case > presentation, though. The most important use case not served by lexical modules is defining a module with a single name that multiple external modules can reference it with. That's the use case discussed in the above meeting notes. Sam _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
