> Why I was asking -- because I saw it in your talk on ES.next, where you used
> exactly this approach, i.e. module Foo = "http://modules.com/foo.js"; --
> without any `require`. That's it.
No problem, I didn't mean to chastise. Just trying to keep focussed.
> (should I fix my following presentation also? I used the same as in yours)
Sure. Surface syntax isn't set in stone, but we aren't likely to go back to
just the string literal, since it looks too much like the module is being
assigned a string value. The current syntax is:
module Foo = require "http://modules.com/foo.js";;
import Foo.bar;
where you can also parenthesize the whole require expression:
module Foo = (require "http://modules.com/foo.js";);
import Foo.bar;
or more simply:
import (require "http://modules.com/foo.js";).bar;
Dave
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
