I agree that it could stand to wait. Also, for what it's worth, the WHATWG loader spec is still a huge work in progress AFAIK.
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015, 18:02 Bradley Meck <bradley.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > The timing and extensibility is too complex to easily fit into ECMA-262, > see some things mentioned in https://github.com/whatwg/loader/issues/54 . > I vote no for a few years at least. > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Jason Orendorff < > jason.orendo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The ES6 module system is taking a real beating in the comments section >> here: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/08/es6-in-depth-modules/ >> >> People are concerned about things like: >> >> - There is no standard way to load any modules at all in the browser. >> - There is no standard way for a module to load other modules later >> (lazily, for faster initial load times). >> - There is no standard way to conditionally load modules. >> - There is no standard way to catch errors when module loading fails. >> >> There's a planned feature that addresses all these use cases: >> `System.import(moduleSpec, referrer)`. >> >> It's possible to make minor changes to HostResolveImportedModule and >> then specify `System.import` in terms of that. It could ship in the >> existing compilation-plus-polyfill module system implementations (like >> webpack) immediately. And it'd be fully compatible with the coming JS >> Loader Standard. >> >> Arguably something this fundamental to module usage belongs in ECMA-262 >> anyway. >> >> What do you think? >> >> -j >> _______________________________________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> es-discuss@mozilla.org >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
