-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 39
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: Amended Require Syntax #78
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ | ||
# Require Resolution with Libraries | ||
|
||
## Summary | ||
|
||
This proposal describes a new syntax to support require-by-string in a format that can work for filesystems and embedded applications such as the Roblox platform, replacing the existing syntax we have today. | ||
|
||
## Motivation | ||
|
||
It should be possible for all users of Luau to write code that is capable of running, without modification, on many different platforms. Unfortunately, we identified an issue with the current syntax that would make it difficult for users of certain tools to adopt. As paths are relative to the file calling require, any tools that adjust the file hierarchy would also need to update require paths to match. While we know there may not be a perfect solution that works for all use-cases, we think the current syntax should be amended to support these cases or at least not require them to translate require paths in files. | ||
|
||
## Design | ||
|
||
### Overview | ||
|
||
When calling require without a prefix, the path will be resolved as an absolute path where the root directory is defined as follows: | ||
|
||
* If the file does not belong to a library, then the entry point's directory | ||
* If the file belongs to a library, then the directory containing the library | ||
|
||
For example, here's a simple file system: | ||
|
||
``` | ||
├── folder | ||
│ └── file.luau | ||
├── module.luau | ||
└── init.luau | ||
``` | ||
|
||
And here's how you would navigate between files using the proposed syntax when init.luau is the entry point: | ||
|
||
| **From** | **To** | **Path** | | ||
|------------------|------------------|-------------| | ||
| init.luau | module.luau | module | | ||
| init.luau | folder/file.luau | folder/file | | ||
| module.luau | folder/file.luau | folder/file | | ||
| folder/file.luau | module.luau | module | | ||
|
||
With this syntax, paths are the same no matter where a file is in a project, meaning they can be restructured by the user or with tools, without creating any issues. | ||
|
||
### Libraries | ||
|
||
While this RFC does not call out the exact definition of a library, there will be a way to designate a directory as such. Here is an example of a filesystem including one: | ||
|
||
``` | ||
├── library (defined in some way) | ||
│ ├── folder | ||
│ │ └── file.luau | ||
│ └── module.luau | ||
└── init.luau | ||
``` | ||
|
||
And here's how you would navigate between these files: | ||
|
||
| **From** | **To** | **Path** | | ||
|--------------------------|--------------------------|----------------| | ||
| init.luau | library/module.luau | library/module | | ||
| library/module.luau | library/folder/file.luau | folder/file | | ||
| library/folder/file.luau | library/module.luau | module | | ||
|
||
Again, paths are still reasonably simple, but this time files in the library requires are relative to the root directory of the library. | ||
|
||
### Init | ||
|
||
As they can today, files called init.luau inside of a directory can be required by requiring the path to the directory they are in. | ||
|
||
``` | ||
├── folder | ||
│ └── init.luau | ||
├── module.luau | ||
└── init.luau | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Given this file structure, it's possible to require folder/init.luau with require("folder"). | ||
However, one subtle change is that you won't be allowed to require init.luau directly. We're doing this for cases where files can also act as directories in certain environments. | ||
|
||
### Aliases | ||
|
||
There are no changes to aliases in this proposal. | ||
|
||
### Relative Paths | ||
|
||
Support for relative paths will be dropped as any libraries written with relative paths would still be incompatible for the aforementioned reasons. | ||
|
||
### Comparison with Current Behavior | ||
|
||
``` | ||
├── folder | ||
│ └── init.luau | ||
├── library (defined in some way) | ||
│ ├── folder | ||
│ │ └── file.luau | ||
│ └── init.luau | ||
├── module.luau | ||
└── init.luau | ||
``` | ||
|
||
| **From** | **To** | **Current Syntax** | **Proposed Syntax** | | ||
|-------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | ||
| init.luau | module.luau | ./module | module | | ||
| init.luau | folder/init.luau | ./folder | folder | | ||
| init.luau | library/init.luau | ./library | library | | ||
| init.luau | library/folder/file.luau | ./library/folder/file | library/folder/file | | ||
| module.luau | folder/init.luau | ./folder | folder | | ||
| module.luau | library/init.luau | ./library | library | | ||
| folder/init.luau | module.luau | ./../module ../module | module | | ||
| folder/init.luau | library/folder/file.luau | ./../library/folder/file ../library/folder/file | library/folder/file | | ||
| library/init.luau | library/folder/file.luau | ./folder/file | folder/file | | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why isn't the new syntax required to be explicit, like in the choice chosen in the last accepted require-by-string RFC? |
||
|
||
As paths are now relative to the root directory the only ones that change are those in files under a subdirectory. All other paths remain the same as the current syntax. | ||
|
||
## Drawbacks | ||
|
||
While still fairly new, some users have already adopted the current syntax, which will mean they need to update their code to use the proposed syntax. We could maintain support for relative paths however this would be inadvisable due to the compatibility issue mentioned prior. | ||
|
||
## Alternatives | ||
|
||
We have already considered (and even approved) some alternatives to this approach, however there are drawbacks with each of them that ultimately led us in this direction. | ||
|
||
* [Amended Require Syntax and Resolution Semantics](https://github.com/luau-lang/rfcs/pull/56) | ||
* [Require by String (split into two RFCs)](https://github.com/luau-lang/luau/pull/969) | ||
* [Require by String with Aliases](https://github.com/luau-lang/rfcs/pull/7) | ||
* [New Require by String Semantics](https://github.com/luau-lang/rfcs/pull/6) | ||
* [Amended Require Resolution Init](https://github.com/luau-lang/rfcs/pull/76) |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Presumably this means calling
require
without a prefixed string, but it should be more clear.