On 15.05.2010 15:53, P T Withington wrote:
On 2010-05-13, at 19:41, David Herman wrote:
I've updated the strawman proposals for static modules and dynamic module
loaders and would love to get feedback from the es-discuss community.
* Static modules:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:simple_modules
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:simple_modules_examples
Looks great!
I wonder if you considered having an export list, rather than tagging the
individual exports? I think that makes it easier to see/document the public
API of a module. You could at the same time allow renaming on export.
Yep, I also thought. Cons: we should repeat method name twice (and in
the worth case -- three times) and can forget to export something (as
e.g. Erlang programmers sometimes where should be -export([...])
statement(s) at the top of a source file). On the other hand (without
common "export"), we should repeat the "export" keyword every time. As a
variation, naming convention, thus the system can understand
automatically what should be exported (as an example on Rhino:
http://gist.github.com/363056). But, because of backward compatibility
this is not acceptable (although, is convenient).
module Cowboy {
export {draw: d, shoot: s};
function d () { ... };
function s () { d(); };
}
FWIW, the rename on import looked "backwards" to me at first glance, but I
think I can learn.
It can be done for shortness e.g. or naming preferences of an author
(maybe he doesn't like "Math" name ;)). But usually, yes, it is useful
"backwards". If some module has been rewritten, then the old one can be
named with "old" prefix. Thus, a user shouldn't rename it in all files
but just (example from Python's django): "import oldforms as forms" and
after that continue to use this "forms" name.
Do we really need to say `.*` for all? We couldn't just say `import Math`?
Yep, ".*" seems obsolete, although, the reason is to be consistent I guess.
Another proposal:
import Geometry.{draw: drawShape};
How about:
import Geometry:{draw: drawShape};
colon apt more for "from" word. Another variations:
from Geometry import: {draw: drawShape};
or
from Geometry import: {draw as drawShape, ...};
from Geometry import {draw as drawShape, ...}; // without colon at all
Cons: additional/obsolete "from" and "as" keywords.
P.S.: small off-topic/proposal (just again saw this usage):
module JSON = load('JSON' ||'http://json.org/modules/json2.js');
How about a small syntactic sugar for useful and widespread construction:
x = x || 10
to remove this repetition from the right side:
x ||= 10.
module JSON ||= load(...);
Dmitry.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
