options passed to resolve

[mikerobe]

I ran into an issue with browserify, which uses browser-resolve, in that it wasn't finding .coffee files. It turns out this was because it (unlike node loaded with require('coffee-script')) requires the full extension -- require('foo.coffee') instead of require('foo'), which is definitely not something you want to do (it locks you into coffee files, won't use the .js if you "transpile" it, etc.)

Browser-resolve uses resolve and resolve has an option to add file extensions using the extensions key in its command options, but resolve's options aren't exposed in the browser-resolve API, so there's no way to add this file extension when using browser-resolve and thus no way to do it in browserify.

I think browser-resolve should pass the options it receives onto the internal resolve call by copying the keys over from parent.

[andreypopp]

see #12 and and #19

[alexgorbatchev]

@mikerobe i have a browserify branch that should have this addressed https://github.com/alexgorbatchev/node-browserify

[defunctzombie]

I will take a look at the rebased work. I will once again say tho that my focus is on JavaScript development and what this proposes is not for JavaScript development and therefore I see it as an anti-feature and am not interested in it :) On May 14, 2013 5:56 PM, "Alex Gorbatchev" notifications@github.com wrote:

@mikerobe https://github.com/mikerobe i have a browserify branch that should have this addressed https://github.com/alexgorbatchev/node-browserify

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/shtylman/node-browser-resolve/issues/20#issuecomment-17908025 .

[alexgorbatchev]

I would like to present an argument that supporting a middle language that does compile to your language of choice that you make effort to support only makes your efforts more successful :)

I've been writing in ecma script since early 2000, but switched to coffee because i find it's easier to digest and write... but i still think in ecma, coffee is just a different outfit for it.

I would like to call for no coffee discrimination ;)

[andreypopp]

@shtylman is there any progress with this issue? I asked @substack on #browserify and he seems to be ready to merge corresponding pull request into module-deps and browserify after this one is merged

[defunctzombie]

I have been travelling lately and not had a chance to review this yet. I will add the feature tho; I have given up fighting this. I personally think it is stupid but realize other people are doing it this way.

[ghost]

This seems like such a minor thing. I already do require('./file.js') sometimes because I like how explicit that is. Extensions are global and mutating globals gets really weird and uncomposable really fast.

[Raynos]

I think require('./file") should only be used for folders

[andreypopp]

@substack @Raynos for me it's not a minor thing I use coffeescript and

• if I require my .coffee files with extensions and use coffeeify transform — then after publishing my built js files on npm my imports stop working, because now the extension of my modules is .js
• if I do separate build step before browserify then
  • I have to lay down all built files on filesystem which is sometimes a lot of burden
  • I have to provide a way for sourcemaps to work while with using coffeeify they work out of the box

Given that this change is already supported by node-resolve and is a single-line change, I think, it would make just a little tiny piece of harm to browserify in terms of complexity and at the same time this resolves a lot of burden for AltJS (CoffeeScript in my case) langs developers.

[Raynos]

@andreypopp the fact that coffeescript does not compile require("x.coffee") to require("x.js) is clearly a bug.

[andreypopp]

@Raynos I do not think that it is really sane to allow a compiler to mangle string literals, I would consider this a flaw of CommonJS module system then, because it is uses string literals and not static identifiers for importing modules

[Raynos]

Then you should just only have require("x.js") references and when you compile it into js there is no string munging.

[andreypopp]

Then I have to compile sources separately before running even in nodejs and give up CoffeeScript development tools (such a REPL)

Andrey Popp

On 23.05.2013, at 12:18, Raynos notifications@github.com wrote:

Then you should just only have require("x.js") references and when you compile it into js there is no string munging.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[defunctzombie]

I believe this issue was resolved a while back. If it is still a problem please let me know.