On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Andreas Rossberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think you are missing the central problem. If imports/exports are to > be statically checked, then module bindings, their exports, and their > uses have to be statically recognisable and analysable. That prohibits > intermixing "proper" modules with other random objects. No, it means that your checker will only work with 'proper' modules. The linter can easily have a white/blacklist to handle oddball cases. You argue that throwing out checking is fine, i.e., you are arguing > for the second goal, and against the first. But others disagree. > No. I believe that *allowing the user (or module author) to selectively ignore* the checking (for example, by using a default import of an object which is not a module). You seem to be missing my fundamental point: this is not a dichotomy. You can check many imports, even if you can't check all. If the module author chooses to export a function instead of an object, you can't check the imports of *that one module*. Use a different module if that bothers you! No, the importers have no choice, they have to go with whatever the > module provider picked. The importers have the choice to use a different module (or fork the module, or use a transpiler, or...). The module author has the choice to re/structure his module to allow lazy binding/checking *iff the users demand*. > The hybrid, best of both worlds approach you seem to > have in mind is technically impossible, unfortunately. > I look forward to a technical proof then. You have not yet provided that. --scott
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
