(Sorry for the "boo", but I can't mask my disappointment here.) Erik, was was Dave's argument that a new binding is a non-starter?
Thanks! On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Alex completely. Using `this` as a module meta object is a > bad idea. Boo. > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Robb <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What if instead of any sort of magic there was a special relative import >> a person could specify to get access to the this module? >> >> ``` >> import module from "@currentModule"; >> ``` >> >> >> - Matthew Robb >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Erik Arvidsson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon Jun 09 2014 at 12:25:42 AM, Domenic Denicola < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> If a magically in-scope binding is necessary to access module meta >>>> capabilities, giving it a name like `module` or `System.currentModule` >>>> would be much better. >>>> >>> `System.currentModule` requires magic. It would require the engine to >>> know where the call site was. >>> >>> We also talked about adding a binding, like NodeJS does but @David >>> Herman <[email protected]> argued that thaw is a non starter. >>> >>> So, if we don't want to use `this` or introduce a new binding name, or >>> add more magic, the only thing left seems to be new dedicated syntax. In >>> ES4 we `this function` which is similar to what @Axel Rauschmayer >>> <[email protected]> suggested. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> >> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
