Who is failing to do what now? :-/
/be
John Barton wrote:
This same claim could be made about every item in ECMAScript.
Implementation variation in ModuleSpecifiers is no different from
variation in the allowed keywords, character set, or really anything a
developer types. Failing to specify
This same claim could be made about every item in ECMAScript.
Implementation variation in ModuleSpecifiers is no different from variation
in the allowed keywords, character set, or really anything a developer
types. Failing to specify this aspect of the language makes no sense to
this developer at
Don't worry. It is going to be spec'ed as part of the module loader spec.
http://whatwg.github.io/loader/
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:47 AM John Barton wrote:
> This same claim could be made about every item in ECMAScript.
> Implementation variation in ModuleSpecifiers is no different from variati
Browsers in any semi-competitive market will agree on a standard. I
don't see why that needs to be called into doubt, even as part of a
"hypothetical future" :-|. (Is there another kind? :-P)
/be
Domenic Denicola wrote:
Yes, in theory. However, browsers are more likely to wait until
there’s a
@mozilla.org
Subject: Re: import ModuleSpecifier
Are you saying that in the future each browser can have its own rule for module
specifier strings?
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Domenic Denicola
mailto:d...@domenic.me>> wrote:
It is syntactically valid, but there is no specification fo
>
> *From:* es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> Volkmann
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 31, 2015 17:21
> *To:* es-discuss@mozilla.org
> *Subject:* import ModuleSpecifier
>
>
>
> I was under the impression that the following is a vali
have a module loader, they will have
their own rule. Similarly, io.js will have its own.
From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-boun...@mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Volkmann
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 17:21
To: es-discuss@mozilla.org
Subject: import ModuleSpecifier
I was under the impression that
I was under the impression that the following is a valid import statement:
import {something} from './somefile';
I know this used to work in Traceur. However, in the latest version of
Traceur I have to include a file extension like this for it to work:
import {something} from './somefile.js';
I
8 matches
Mail list logo
