Re: changes in 'require'

[Mike Pall <mikelu-0507@...>]

Hi,

Diego Nehab wrote:
> Anyways, take socket.url as an example. It doesn't use anything from the
> socket module. Should it be promoted to an independent package?

Probably not. It's add-on functionality to the socket module.

> Right now, one can call require"socket.url" and get namespace for it,
> without loading the socket module as a side effect.

But any user of "socket.url" is likely to use the "socket"
functionality, too. It's a bit pointless to resolve URLs back
and forth without doing some kind of network access, right?

[No, offline processing of URLs in a file is not a common use case.]

That's why I said:
: ... functionality that is ... needed for their children
: (or likely users of their children) ...
  ===================================

> With the new scheme, that would not be possible. The "socket" parent
> package will be implicitly "required".

Well, I could live with that. :-)

> On the other hand, I will get over it if I have to and *I still prefer
> the new scheme*!

Great. So let's do it.

Bye,
     Mike