TC39 Module Harmony
2024-07-02
plaintext logs
prev next
source on github
00:43
<kriskowal>
guybedford: were you imagining that source.imports() return through to WebAssembly.Module.imports(source) without mapping the {module, name, kind} treble to just name?
00:44
<kriskowal>
I would invite folks to join TG3 Wed to discuss module harmony topics. I don’t think we have an agenda.
05:32
<jakobjingleheimer>
I already have plans for tomorrow
17:46
<guybedford>

Are you saying that in the case of a reexport - there is a desire to see the exact reexport binding mapping?

When we originally evaluated, our concern was the fact that import { x } from './y'; export { x } and export { x } from './y' are semantically equivalent, but would reflect differently in the bindings. With the bindings scheme we have now both of the above would have the same output for the exports() and imports() analysis.

17:47
<guybedford>
so if we did provide a reexports scheme, then the question is should those be represented the same or differently? And if not the same, is this is a useful analysis from a semantic point of view?
17:49
<guybedford>
it could be interpreted that way although is an entirely new implementation