On 27 April 2013 01:17, David Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 26, 2013, at 7:27 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What you propose, with "logical names", is a global namespace of short >> human-readable names with *no* conflict resolution authority. How do you >> see that working? From a namespace perspective, how is that any different >> than hanging identifiers off of the global object, as we do today? I'm not >> understanding how this strategy will facilitate namespace coordination. I >> can only see it leading to namespace confusion. > > Well first, it's much cleaner than the global object, because it does not > involve the mess of prototype chains and sharing space with a DOM object's > properties and methods.
That actually is a moot point, however, since we had long decided that module declarations would live in the lexical top-level scope, so not inherit any of the global object craziness. And given that, and the assumption of using a package manager that could do the set-up, I think Kevin's is a valid question. If all you allow are simple logical path names, then I see no substantial advantage of the current design over sharing modules via global identifiers. That said, I don't see it as sufficient either. But I conjecture that if you have lexical modules + a loader + the ability to use the full URI name space for imports, then everything else can be programmed on top in whatever way anybody prefers. No need to bake anything more specific into the language. /Andreas _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
