pulp run's loader stub file can interfere with module names, should be kept in a temp directory

[felixSchl]

The README does not make specific mention of it but am I correct to assume that a pulp init && pulp run should work without errors?

I am getting:

...
on (exports, require, module, __filename, __dirname) { require('Main').main();
                                                                       ^
TypeError: Object #<Object> has no method 'main'
...

[felixSchl]

pulp init && pulp test works, btw. I think it has to do with the node env not being set correctly.

[felixSchl]

It's because main.js is picked up as the main module, but the default skeleton creates a Main purescript module, which results in output/Main/index.js. Node will import main.js on require('Main'), rather than Main/index.js.

[bodil]

Proposed solution would be to not store the wrapper file inside the build directory at all, rather using the temp module to store it somewhere out of the way, then get rid of it automatically when it's no longer needed.

[felixSchl]

I appreciate it's not an all encompassing solution but that is besides the point of the pull request. The initial experience of starting with pulp is what mattered to me. If I change things, I can expect unforeseen things to happen.

[bodil]

I appreciate that, I'd still like to get the correct solution in asap. And I'm working on it as we speak, give me a moment. :)

[felixSchl]

That commit introduces a Type error in run.js on line 22. Just add the additional parameter to fs.write and it works: felixSchl/pulp@908600e

[bodil]

That's curious. What Node version are you on, just for reference? The docs have that parameter down as optional.

[felixSchl]

The docs specify the parameter as optional only if the other optional parameter position has been specified - note the nested brackets. You can refer to the implementation which has not changed since mid july 2013.

[bodil]

The code seems to willingly accept both, but I agree with your interpretation of the doc. JS is terrible. :(

It did run correctly in its previous form on my v0.12.0 version of Node, though, which is why I'm puzzled.