Discuss
  • harmony:modules with require

harmony:modules with require

# Irakli Gozalishvili (14 years ago)

I just noticed that harmony modules have a different spelling then it used to have:

module YUI = 'developer.yahoo.com/modules/yui3.js'; module YUI = require('developer.yahoo.com/modules/yui3.js'); I wanted to know what was a reason for such a change. I am also concerned that this will bring quite a confusion as require is pretty well adopted function this days while spelling of it's modules is pretty much different.

-- Irakli Gozalishvili Web: www.jeditoolkit.com Address: 29 Rue Saint-Georges, 75009 Paris, France

# Dmitry A. Soshnikov (14 years ago)

On 14.04.2011 11:38, Irakli Gozalishvili wrote:

Hi,

I just noticed that harmony modules have a different spelling then it used to have:

module YUI ='developer.yahoo.com/modules/yui3.js'; module YUI = require('developer.yahoo.com/modules/yui3.js'); I wanted to know what was a reason for such a change. I am also concerned that this will bring quite a confusion as require is pretty well adopted function this days while spelling of it's modules is pretty much different.

Agreed on "breaking the web" for the "require" name which already actively used today. Though, this name is used mostly exactly for the reason it's planned -- e.g. in CommonJS (and similar) for loading modules.

However, we shouldn't exclude that the "require" can already be used for many other things which will break them (if not, why did we cancel "fun" and "fn" in respect of # for short functions notations? -- IIRC, exactly the reason "fun" / "fn" can already be used as normal identifiers. The same with "require").

I also raised recently this question (moreover, Dave (and me in my future presentation) used in his ES.next talk exactly first approach, without "require"). The answer was -- to support things such as:

import (require "./modules/widgets.js").{Panel, Window}

and that string literal is ambiguous with assignment a string to a module, which IMO not a sound reason at all.

So I also think that just string literal is enough, and it won't "break the web" in respect of "require" identifier. Moreover, this looks for me absolutely OK and even more convenient:

import "./modules/widgets.js".{Panel, Window}

P.S.: other variants which I proposed for such a loading:

import {Panel, Window} "./modules/widgets.js"

though, "from" keyword is asking to be included:

import {Panel, Window} from "./modules/widgets.js"

Dmitry.

# Dave Herman (14 years ago)

It's a contextual keyword only. Doesn't break anything.