| 07:06 | <ljharb> | i also have hands to put together for that topic |
| 23:14 | <bakkot> | sorry for the basic question, but can someone remind me if the plan is for module declarations / expressions to evaluate to ModuleSource objects or to some other kind of thing? also is "the plan" written down somewhere? I know there's https://github.com/tc39/proposal-compartments/blob/master/0-module-and-module-source.md but it's quite old and I don't know if it's current |
| 23:15 | <kriskowal> | that is old and very much not current |
| 23:16 | <kriskowal> | I defer to nicolo-ribaudo regarding declarations and expressions, but I believe that the current thinking is that these will evaluate to ModuleSource. |
| 23:16 | <bakkot> | also can you import(moduleSource)? |
| 23:16 | <kriskowal> | But we have not revisited that topic since before ESM source phase imports landed, and my understanding is that has halved the design options. |
| 23:17 | <bakkot> | oh I guess proposal says yes |
| 23:17 | <kriskowal> | Yes, import(moduleSource) is I believe Stage 3. |
| 23:17 | <bakkot> | 2.7 unless the table is out of date |
| 23:18 | <kriskowal> | You looked more recently. |
| 23:18 | <kriskowal> | In any case, it’s not 4. |
| 23:18 | <kriskowal> | But, this group of folks is building off the assumption that proceeds. |
| 23:19 | <kriskowal> | In which case, it will make the most sense for (module {}) instanceof ModuleSource such that import(module {}) becomes a thing. |
| 23:19 | <bakkot> | yup, great, ok |
| 23:20 | <kriskowal> | Pointedly, it no longer makes sense to propose new Module(moduleSource). |