Skip to content
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
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
123 changes: 123 additions & 0 deletions docs/require-by-string-2.md
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:
Copy link
Contributor

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.


* 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 |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The 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)