Hehe, well, making everything a global is one way to design it. ;} Can't wait for modules to be native!
*/#!/*JoePea On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Isiah Meadows <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
