On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 3:04 PM, David Herman <dher...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> If they want to share a utility module, you pull it out into a place that's > in scope for both ModA and ModB: > > <script> > module ModUtils = load "http://acme.com/modutils.js";; > module ModA = load "http://acme.com/moda.js";; > module ModB = load "http://acme.com/modb.js";; > ... > </script> > Ahh - thanks for this. So both the moda.js and modb.js source files can contain (for example): ModUtils.myfunc(); And can import the exports of ModUtils: import ModUtils.myfunc; myfunc(); Also, a script author can configure which modules they will use: For example use modules ModA and ModB - but not say - ModC and ModD. <script> module Acme { module ModUtils = load "http://acme.com/modutils.js";; module ModA = load "http://acme.com/moda.js";; module ModB = load "http://acme.com/modb.js";; // don't load the source files modc.js and modd.js - not used } Acme.ModA.myfunc(); Acme.ModB.myfunc2(); ... </script> Is it correct that a module declaration within a script tag only has scope within that script tag? > I'm surprised to here you cite C as a precedent for modules, since C has no > module system. That would be a surprise! No just the lexical concept. -- _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
