discussions about namespace about bs-webapi-incubator HOT 14 CLOSED

Can we do just 2? You're talking about generating a module alias file right?

from bs-webapi-incubator.

yes, just generating a module alias, but reason-js is not a vaild suffix or prefix

from bs-webapi-incubator.

Ah I remember: npm doesn't allow uppercase letters anymore, so the only choice the user has is snake_case. This probably sucks for camelCase. So let's not reuse package name...?

from bs-webapi-incubator.

Couldn't the package name just be transformed to snake_case? I'd like that for module names derived from (dasherized) filenames too. It's a simple and predictable process, and while there is a minute chance of accidental collisions it seems essentially theoretical to me.

from bs-webapi-incubator.

@glennsl what if we want the module to be called ReasonJs rather than Reason_js?

from bs-webapi-incubator.

Then I suppose you'd have to specify it, but you would have to do that either way, right? Having a generated default wouldn't change that.

from bs-webapi-incubator.

ReasonJs looks better, it is acceptable to have all files renamed form 'xxRe' to 'ReasonJs_xx', too ugly ?

from bs-webapi-incubator.

btw, if we enforce such convention, then the build system could infer the package name, is a good idea?

from bs-webapi-incubator.

I dunno if this is coming from the right direction. I guess it's cool to look at the current convention and say "how can we adapt our build tools to make this better", but the real problem is that there's no notion of namespacing beyond that of a file. Doing funky things with the file name is, like, a cool hack, but hey we've got folders!! which provide a super great way of organizing files...
Could we instead adopt rust semantics for namespacing, where each folder essentially becomes a module?

from bs-webapi-incubator.

@jaredly I'd really like that, but I'm guessing the heavy reuse of ocaml's toolchain makes that difficult. I've heard rumours that ocaml might gain support for some form of namespacing sometime in the next decade or so, though!

@bobzhang I'd be fine with that. I'd be fine with anything, really, as long as it's not gibberish.

from bs-webapi-incubator.

cool, I will whip up a quick solution, stay tuned, btw, do you use open too much?

from bs-webapi-incubator.

We have package names that also have . in it. For starter, just a {"namespace": ...} would be good enough. Can we leave the prefix/suffix thing to later? fooRe is a lazy arbitrary convention I came up with to avoid collision internally.

I don't dislike @jaredly proposal either. But we can at least do a library-wise namespace first. If it's not too much trouble we can do both?

from bs-webapi-incubator.

@bobzhang I don't understand the question, Do you think I use open too much? ReasonJs and ReasonJs.Dom is kind of designed to be opened, like a core library, though it could certainly use some cleaning up here and there.

from bs-webapi-incubator.

Closing for having outlived its usefulness, I think. There's namespace support in BS now. See #81

from bs-webapi-incubator.