proposal-built-in-modules
proposal-built-in-modules copied to clipboard
tc39
Should built-in modules be all with one scope/scheme prefix in their module specifier, or should we have multiple prefixes based on what kind of module they are? I've heard different...
The presentation in this repository articulates integrity as an important goal of built-in modules. When we discussed this topic in committee, additional, opposing goals were raised in the area of...
The current proposal declares access to the standard library will be exposed via imports, but provides little reasoning for the decision. Given that there are multiple current built-ins that are...
This proposal reached stage 1 at the July 2018 meeting and this issue will track progress towards stage 2. **Requirements:** - [ ] Initial spec text - [ ] Major...
Ideas I've heard so far: - "scope:module" - "scope::module" What else are you thinking of? Splitting into another thread based on https://github.com/tc39/proposal-javascript-standard-library/issues/12#issuecomment-447925779 .
It is probably too early to discuss this, but I think it is important to clarify early on. Where would the content of the standard library be implemented? Would they...
A standard library for JS would be nice, and I do feel this effort could have an incredible impact upon the community. However, I feel this effort should be divided...
This idea is so frequently cited that it might be worth including in an FAQ. The idea is to use some version of signature-based SRI-based caching which crosses origins instead...
Was looking at the proposals for adding protected name spaces & using stuff like: `std:` to prefix the standard libraries. Can it be done like so: Why not consider this...
