-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
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
Add no-pkg-flags-to-cmj test #391
Conversation
619b449
to
26bf49d
Compare
26bf49d
to
69fbf00
Compare
|
||
$ melc -bs-package-output lib/ lib/.objs/melange/a.cmj -o output/lib/a.js | ||
|
||
If we pass some file extension or module system in `-bs-package-output`, it |
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.
@jchavarri I actually changed this. If you pass bs-package-output
with package specs Melange will use that. The correct flag to use to control JS output at this stage is -bs-module-type
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.
Sounds good.
re: passing -o
with file extension and -bs-package-output
, I am not sure if we should fail? It's a bit confusing that user can pass file extension in two places.
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.
it's indeed a bit confusing, but I think we don't need to care about that:
- the CLI interface is for "expert" usage
- people will mostly interact with melange through
mel
ordune
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.
I think that's one (maybe last?) thing to improve on later. I think the code is a lot cleaner after #384, as there's now a separation between the "package specs" (as recorded in the .cmj
-- what's the relative path of this module?) and the output information we'll need for emission ("what module system and JS suffix should this file have?").
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.
I only took a quick look, but the internal split between batch and separate compilation sounds like a great idea.
Co-authored-by: Javier Chávarri <javier.chavarri@gmail.com>
Re-hash of #386