I don't believe there's a formal proposal yet, but there definitely should be. It's been discussed frequently for years by the standards leaders; it's just that we're 1. still waiting on a loader spec for modules to complete (the WHATWG spec is still a work in progress, with quite a bit of recent flux), and 2. a standard library isn't exactly a trivial thing to design.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 01:52 Kris Siegel <[email protected]> wrote: > Are there any proposals regarding built-in module mechanisms or at least > someone to champion it during ECMA meetings? Similar to Joe's point if this > isn't a blocking issue then releasing item after item into the global scope > means they are stuck there forever (unless something like "use stricter"; > or whatever other silliness is added to gate the changes). This seems to me > like it shouldn't be that hard to do if someone is championing / proposing. > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:26 PM, /#!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: > >> True, I understand we can't practically do it at the moment since native >> module systems aren't implemented yet. I guess I am simply expressing that >> it would be awesome and that I can't wait for that to happen sooner than >> later so that new awesome features/tools can be modules instead of globals. >> >> The part that gives me a tiny bit of despair is that if something is >> released as a global, then it will stay that way essentially forever, for >> backwards compatibility. That is the part that makes me feel a tiny bit bad >> inside considering that the amazing language for modules is already defined. >> >> */#!/*JoePea >> >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Jordan Harband <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> We don't yet have a mechanism for built-in modules, and that's not going >>> to be an obstacle for continuing to improve the language. >>> >>> As soon as a viable mechanism and precedent exists for that, new things >>> very well might only be added via that mechanism, rather than solely by >>> adding new global things. >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:52 PM, /#!/JoePea <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Seems like when the ES6 Modules became official that it would be a good >>>> idea to *not* define more globals in the language, and instead spec things >>>> to be modules, f.e. something like: >>>> >>>> ```js >>>> import {apply} from 'Reflect' >>>> // insead of >>>> const {apply} = window.Reflect >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> This would also be a pattern for programs that use the JS engine to >>>> follow: >>>> >>>> ```js >>>> import {define} from 'CustomElements' // in browsers >>>> // instead of >>>> const {define} = window.customElements >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> Maybe a symbol would be needed for any modules that are native? >>>> >>>> ```js >>>> import {define} from '#CustomElements' // # means native module >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> */#!/*JoePea >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
