Sweet - I was hoping that the module wouldn't have to name itself.
My next question has to do with bundling. Let's say I want to bundle a.js
and b.js into a single file, with the exports of a.js providing the exports
of this bundled "thing". I suppose I could wrap both of the individual
modules something like this:
module a { /* a.js text */ }
module b { /* b.js text */ }
export a; // ? Not sure about this one
But will the runtime know how to correctly resolve the (module b = "b.js";)
that comes from a.js? Or will that declaration have to be rewritten?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM, David Herman <dher...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> There's some flexibility built in to the system via module loaders. The
> "filesystem modules" example is hypothetical; it assumes a built-in module
> loader that maps files available on the filesystem to corresponding
> pre-defined, nested modules.
>
> On the web, you would do almost as you suggest:
>
> > // a.js
> > module a
> > {
> > module b = "b.js";
> > }
>
> except that a.js doesn't name itself; it's named by the script that loads
> it:
>
> // a.js
> module b = "b.js";
> ...
>
> // b.js
> ...
>
> // project.html
> ...
> <script type="harmony">
> module a = "a.js";
> </script>
>
> Dave
>
> PS I will be updating the wiki pages soon to reflect some of the
> finer-grained details and tweaks I've made to the design based on my
> experience prototyping modules in Narcissus (
> http://github.com/mozilla/narcissus). I'll ping the list when the pages
> are updated.
>
>
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
