Module names play a role in three processes, in general:
1. As a way to identify local components.
2. As a way to find the physical resource that is the source code (or
object code) of the module.
3. As a way for two separately developed components to coordinate
about which module they mean.
In the current design, the internal names (eg, "jquery") serve role 1,
and URLs (as generated by the loader hooks) serve role 2. The
coordination role is played by internal names in a shared registry.
You argue for a two-level system of non-lexical names to support
configuration - okay. But why does that imply you have to drop
the lexical naming altogether, instead of using a three-level system
(from external to internal to lexical names)?
Also, in a two-level system of external and lexical names, could one
not model the coordination level by a registry/configuration module?
// using loose syntax
module registry {
module jquery = <external remote or local path>
export jquery
}
module client {
import {jquery: $} from registry
}
Claus
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
