Draft http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/Modules/1.1.1
Diff http://wiki.commonjs.org/index.php?title=Modules%2F1.1.1&diff=2509&oldid=2491
Kris Kowal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CommonJS" group.
To post to this group, send email to comm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to commonjs+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/commonjs?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CommonJS" group.
To post to this group, send email to comm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to commonjs+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/commonjs?hl=en.
I think having require.main === undefined is a much clearer way to say
there's no main module, and haven't seen any conclusive evidence why
the empty object would be preferable.
Hannes
2010/3/24 Kris Kowal <kris....@cixar.com>:
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
+0.5; I don't like it being an explicit {}, I'd prefer it if instead it was defined as an object which must not have a set of keys. ie: an object missing an id... I'd prefer to leave it up to implementations what they want require.main to be for a non-module-main long as it conforms. ie: If a impl makes `module` an instance of some sort of Module class, I don't think it should be non-conforming of them to use the same type of instance for require.main. And if an impl decides their main isn't a module, but still has a followable url that it not be non-conforming to define the .url but leave out the id and whatever else is required to be left out.
--
http://wiki.commonjs.org/index.php?title=Modules%2F1.1.1&diff=2527&oldid=2525
Kris Kowal
2010/3/25 Charles Jolley <cha...@sproutit.com>:
> Diffhttp://wiki.commonjs.org/index.php?title=Modules%2F1.1.1&diff=2509&ol...
>
> Kris Kowal
2. A term must be a camelCase identifier, ".", or "..".
I have never seen a CommonJS module use camelCase ids.
I would prefer to just allow [0-9a-zA-Z_-] possibly along with a suggestion that uppercase characters are discouraged.
-tom
I want this fixed too, but it's not a regression. Would you be
willing to put it off for the next version?
Kris Kowal
I want this fixed too, but it's not a regression.
Would you be
willing to put it off for the next version?