❦ 9 février 2017 22:23 +0100, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> :
>> > "This module is a dependency for browserify." is already present in
>> > the description. And short description says "tty module from node core
>> > for browsers".
>>
>> Then again, they could try looking at the code, which astonishingly does
>> nothing other than throw errors about how none of this is implemented,
>> except in the case of the one function that does anything ('isatty')
>> which unconditionally returns false.
>
>> That being the case, one might have hoped for a description saying
>> something like:
>>
>> stub version of tty, to (barely) satisfy browserify's dependencies
>
> Now this is a new low.
>
> Let's skip the talk about bogus descriptions for a bit, there's a bigger
> problem here: the package doesn't do _anything_ it is supposed to do, just
> returns error on every call. What's the point of having it in the archive?
>
> It changes the usual node.js principle from "do one thing and do it wrong"
> to "just fail".
>
> I hope you do know you can patch the code, including the import line?
> If a dependency is not needed, it's far better to get rid of it than to
> package and pull in a non-functional stub.
>
> A stub is useful when it's an alternative the user can replace; here you
> have it as a hard-coded dependency. Please patch it out instead.
Browserify takes code from npm (targetted at Node) and makes it run
in the browser. Node comes with an API of its own that is not available
in browsers. Browserify provides this code. There is nothing to patch
since browserify is not a direct user of this code. It exposes it to
modules that are unaware they are running in a browser.
--
Make sure special cases are truly special.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature