There are numerous discussions about this throughout the last two years and
you can find record of them throughout es-discuss. Someone closer to the
topic can likely fill you in but I won't try to pull that information off
the top of my head.


- Matthew Robb

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Todd Kennedy <todd at selfassembled.org>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:35, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Matthew Robb wrote:
>
> As soon as the language decided it would have a differentiation for
> modules vs scripts then it seems only natural that it should also specify
> at least some generic means of entry into one mode or another. Then it's up
> to browsers or who ever to determine what external signifiers would trigger
> module instead of script. Or the language parsing logic could say that in
> the presence of module syntax it will always be treated as module. I don't
> know if that's feasible or not *shrug*
>
>
> Modules and scripts can not always be identified by inspection.  Consider:
>
> foo.js -------------------------------
> const answer = 42;
> ---------------------------------------
>
> The semantics of this are quite different depending upon whether foo.js is
> evaluated as a script or loaded as a module.
>
> Allen
>
>
>
> But why?
>
> To be completely serious. Why do we have to make a difference?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20140910/87a6db60/attachment.html>

There are numerous discussions about this throughout the last two years and
you can find record of them throughout es-discuss. Someone closer to the
topic can likely fill you in but I won't try to pull that information off
the top of my head.


- Matthew Robb