![]() I think we would need to find a way of doing this for scoped packages to be workable. I really think that imported module names in source code should match package names in the registry, which is why I created. I’m sure this will become an issue eventually in any case, but right now, I think the lack of scoped packages does help us stave it off for a bit longer. If I publish with a module Bleepbloop and you also publish with the same module name, any project which depends on both of these will simply not work. it’s expected that a package purescript-bleepbloop would contain a module Bleepbloop. Right now there is nothing other than convention linking module names with package names, i.e. The main issue I see is that of module name collisions. (Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part, haha). Imagine if GitHub itself wanted to publish PureScript packages, for instance. I guess works, but that does sort of undermine the idea that the owner of the domain owns the package namespace. ![]() I think I prefer that to domains, especially since it’s not clear what you should do if you want to publish a package but you don’t own a domain yourself. I think it would be nice to be able to easily identify core libraries if they were called e.g. bleep-bloop has no bugs, it has no vulnerabilities and it has low support. I think npm-style scoped packages is probably not a bad idea. bleep-bloop is a JavaScript library typically used in Messaging, Chat, Twilio applications. This is a good time to raise the issue, as we are currently discussing plans for a PureScript registry over at the repo! I think it needs to change many structures so I’m hesitating to ask maintainers first for that but this time at least I just would like to ask what does the member of our community think about this. I think Vim plugins style is more simple and easier because we already have that structure on GitHub… Curly Experimental Artwork aesthetic bleep bloop curly dark edm electronic gradient modern music pc music soundcloud. So this time I would also like to suggest us to use domain stuff for naming a library which is like Java package style () or Vim plugins style (githubusername/libname). I can make purescript-electron-v2 or something like that but I don’t like it. I suppose many other people had been feeling the same, no? And I was not sure the author of the library accept my Pull Request. But at the same time we also have some libraries which are not well-maintained.įor example, purescript-electron, I was going to use this library few months ago but I hesitated because it was old. Now we have lots of libraries on Pursuit thanks to PureScript maintainers and authors of each library. I already tweeted for this topic yesterday (please vote!): While apps are aimed at kids between the. I would like to take this topic to discuss a way to name our library and perhaps to need changing the structure. Bitsboxs gender-neutral apps include titles such as Bleep Bloop Chat, 333 Little Pigs, and Bling this Thing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |