On Nov 30, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
Well as announced in August the ECMAScript 4 language is being
heavily watered down. Both packages (April)
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-April/006183.html
I cannot actually see what is wrong here, AFAICS package Q's
usage of x should be an error as x is actually defined in R as
external and there is no other definition of x in scope.
Package Q contains
import R.*;
which brings (or should bring) R.x into scope under the name x in Q.
Note that "external" does not mean what "extern" in C means. It was a
proposed ES4 built-in namespace meaning "defined in this package but
visible outside of it".
Could someone explain or give a better example.
I can see how the decisions are hard to understand without close
reading, including knowing what "external" was proposed to mean (I
can't find a trace of it in the wiki -- it was cut too well), and
thinking through the meaning of parenthetical asides such as Lars's
"consider that public::x is introduced in some later file, at a later
time" and "consider flagging the reference to x in P as ambiguous".
Even more important than these fine points was the big-picture point
that packages were intended to be sugar for namespaces. Lack of a
desugaring meant ES4 was at risk of being all of late, incomplete, and
inconsistent.
If there were no conflict about the meaning of x in P, then we would
have not had such a problem.
Avoiding a conflict by making the reference to x ambiguous (an error)
was considered "arcane" because the nesting and order of package
fragments should not introduce or eliminate such an error. As with
namespaces (more below), package-based name lookup must agree between
compile time and runtime. They must not be subject to complicated and
hard-to-follow rules.
Plus, we had a schedule for ES4 that was being slipped with every open
problem of this order. The right thing to do per sane requirements
management is to cut, with additions such as the built-in "internal"
namespace added to palliate the loss of packages in a future-proof way.
Therefore the example Lars gave is sufficient -- you don't need a
better example. That one was sufficient to kill packages as sugar in
the time-frame we had for ES4.
and now namespaces have been jetisoned too.
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/006837.html
Again could someone give a good example of whats wrong with
namespaces.
The fundamental problem with namespaces was the lack of a module
system by which to prioritize namespaces during name lookup.
This need for prioritization (one idea was a first-name-wins
reservation system) affected both unqualified name lookup due to the
extensible global object, and name lookup among superclasses.
Consider just the global object case, with two namespaces, both open
in the same lexical scope, where a namespace "ns" is defined at first
in only one of the namespaces (note how namespaces can qualify
namespace names along with other names):
namespace A;
namespace B;
use namespace A, namespace B;
A namespace ns;
Let's say there's a use of ns to qualify an identifier x, in the same
lexical scope (top-level content in a script tag, in a web page):
... ns::x ...
Assume x resolves in ns. The question is: what does ns mean? Let's
refine the reference to be in a function body:
function foo() {
... ns::x ...
}
and close this lexical scope (program defined as a script tag's inline
content or out-of-line src=URL content). Then in a later program
evaluated in the same global object, we add
B namespace ns;
foo();
What effect, if any, does the B::ns namespace have on the meaning of
ns::x in foo's body?
We don't want any effect, even an ambiguity error -- otherwise name
integrity is gone and information leaks if not hijacking attacks are
too easy. Lexical scope means the name lookoup judgments at compile
time and runtime should agree, and foo's scope should be static in all
senses.
But how do we implement this? ES4 had only the reservation system idea
whereby:
A namespace ns;
would reserve "ns" in *all* namespaces, even ones not seen yet, for
the life of the global object being mutated by the definitions. This
was considered broken-as-designed.
An alternative would treat each top-level scope as a module, either by
giving it its own global object (as is done in AS3, IIRC), or at least
a subjective prioritization mechanism by which to make "ns" mean only
A::ns when used in foo, no matter what B::ns might be defined later.
But such a solution was not designed or proposed for ES4, and we were
out of time and complexity budget.
/be
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
