Skip to content

historical: find out design choices that led to status quo ordering #5

Open

Description

@bmeck

Can't find any links in notes about this, however; ES4 did use the specifier only per archived copy of an overview pdf

Activity

  1. myshov commented on Apr 7, 2020

    @myshov

    I believe the whole work history on this feature was on wiki.ecmascript.org but this site is not available anymore :( Champions of this feature were Dave Herman (@dherman) and Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (@samth).

  2. samth commented on Apr 7, 2020

    @samth

    You can find almost all of the old information here: https://www.ecma-international.org/archive/ecmascript/ and in things that links to.

  3. samth commented on Apr 7, 2020

    @samth

    As for the particular decision here, import was an existing reserved keyword, making the grammar easier to make work. Additionally, some people preferred the uniformity of having import as the initial keyword in all imports.

    The alternative ordering proposed here was definitely discussed.

  4. bmeck commented on Apr 7, 2020

    @bmeck
    OwnerAuthor

    @samth the last discussion I could find in the archives which had a form similar to this proposal was https://www.ecma-international.org/archive/ecmascript/2009/TC39/tc39-2009-012.pdf . If the move was purely to make the grammar/consistency better the details might be lost to notes not being available. Do you know if tooling or ease of use was ever discussed?

  5. samth commented on Apr 7, 2020

    @samth

    Dave and I developed our proposal separately from that one. This is the original presentation on our design: https://www.ecma-international.org/archive/ecmascript/2010/TC39/tc39-2010-017.pdf, which has a different syntax than what we ended up with. I don't precisely recall the details of how everything changed, but certainly tooling and ease of use were discussed.

  6. bmeck commented on Apr 7, 2020

    @bmeck
    OwnerAuthor

    @samth thanks, I saw that but no details on these discussions. This helps.

  7. svr93 commented on Apr 12, 2020

    @svr93

    I see some changes between two dates:
    May 9, 2011 - https://web.archive.org/web/20110509070046/http://wiki.ecmascript.org:80/doku.php?id=harmony:modules (examples with @samth form import Bar.y;)

    and July 10, 2011 -
    https://web.archive.org/web/20110710042340/http://wiki.ecmascript.org:80/doku.php?id=harmony:modules (import y from Bar;)

    https://www.ecma-international.org/archive/ecmascript/2011/TC39/tc39-2011-037.pdf - example with import foo.* form

    @bmeck no details at all. Maybe this information with dates can help to find related discussions.

  8. samth commented on Apr 12, 2020

    @samth

    Somewhere the meeting notes must be archived, but I don't know where that is.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    help wantedExtra attention is needed

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions