[17:18]<peter_12> has there been any more talk about packaging/distribution for Helma NG? [17:19]<zumbrunn> no, we just need to catch up with you on the mailing list :-) [17:19]<zumbrunn> hannes probably is thinking about it and trying things [17:20]<zumbrunn> since for example he worked on implementing js 1.8 functionality in rhino [17:20]<zumbrunn> like destructuring assignments, which where mentioned in context of the import() syntax [17:21]<zumbrunn> and I assume he'll join in on the mailing list again after his experimentations [17:24]<zumbrunn> of course, the syntax/sugar of how the module system is used and the way it is implemented are two completely different topics anyway [17:25]<zumbrunn> regarding the implementation there haven't really been any proposals yet, right? [17:27]<zumbrunn> for example this here: [17:27]<zumbrunn> http://helma.org/pipermail/helma-cvs/2008-September/012272.html [17:32]<zumbrunn> from the syntax/sugar point of view, in the context of rhino, I still believe making javascript modules behave similar to packages would be a consistent approach [17:34]<zumbrunn> of course, I know that the similarities only go so long... "leaky abstractions" and all that [17:34]<zumbrunn> but like there is a Packages object now, there could be a Modules object [17:35]<zumbrunn> and accessing properties of that object could do all the woodoo of loading the modules [17:35]<zumbrunn> and handling dependencies [20:18]<peter_12> zumbrunn: I'm reading your replies in the hopbot transcript. Handy tool.