[Dave has been traveling, hope it's ok for me to jump in. /be]
On Jan 2, 2012, at 6:07 AM, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> In other words, I think the main points of your proposal can
> essentially be rephrased to:
>
> 1) Rename "use version 6" to "use module".
> 2) Allow module declarations in classic mode.
[Replying to (1) and (2) here:]
Not just module declarations -- all new syntax that is not
backwards-incompatible: destructuring, rest/spread, for/of ,generators,
comprehensions, generator expresions, quasiliterals, more.
> 3) Make every module body start with an implicit "use module".
That's not right: use module; in a pragma turns the enclosing block or body
into a module {...}, in a macro-like way. Then if the module {...} is illegal
in the given context (i.e., not nested immediately in another module's body),
you get the same error you'd get trying to write, e.g.,
if (cond) { module { /* stuff */ } }
> 4) Keep the semantics of the top-level scope unaltered, even in
> presence of a top-level "use module".
No, see above: that turns the verbatim top level into the ... part of module
{...}.
> I'm fine with (1) to (3), but (4) seems to be a separate design choice.
With what I wrote above in mind, what do you think now?
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
