Multi Entry Paths - #8367
Conversation
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d7ebd03747
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
rescript
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/rescript@8367
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@rescript/darwin-arm64@8367
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@rescript/darwin-x64@8367
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@rescript/linux-arm64@8367
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@rescript/linux-x64@8367
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@rescript/runtime@8367
npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@rescript/win32-x64@8367 commit: b6b2c64 |
Sorry, something went wrong.
| "$ref": "#/definitions/namespace-spec", | ||
| "description": "can be true/false or a customized name" | ||
| }, | ||
| "multi-entry": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From the name "multi-entry", it is pretty unclear what this option does.
Feedback from Codex
"multi-entry" is misleading here. It sounds like “multiple entrypoints” or a bundler feature, while the actual semantic change is module visibility and naming.
It suggests these alternatives:
- private-file-modules
- private-lowercase-modules
- file-private-modules
Maybe the second one is clearest? Any other suggestions?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll have a think / rename this. I agree multi-entry is a bit vague
Sorry, something went wrong.
Reviewers
At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.
No description provided.