eric

Thanks for the report. I will take a look. On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 18:38 Coot wrote: > If you change bundle to true in the example > and...

Sorry for the delay on this. I just checked, and this is problematic as well back in version 2.4.2 of the loader. However, I am wondering the use-case for bundling...

Thanks for the note @aztecrex. That definitely works if one does not need to bundle in watch mode. @coot I think using `purs ide` is a good solution. I agree...

Thanks for the report. Sorry for the delay. I will get back to this next week. On Monday, 26 September 2016, Dmitry Smolin [email protected] wrote: > purs-loader starts bundling right...

This definitely requires a bit more digging on my part. However, I wonder if it may be worth evaluating the pros/cons of keeping the bundling feature. If you don't mind...

Gotcha. I will look into a possible solution to this.

Thanks for the diff. Just so I understand, is it that we have to wait for all of the non-PureScript modules in general to have `bundling === undefined`? Or is...

Also, you don't happen to have a small use-case that reproduces this issue, do you?

Thank you for the details on how to reproduce this. I am wondering if there might be a webpack plugin hook that we can leverage in the loader to run...

I believe that you just need to run [your effect](https://github.com/GCrispino/purescript-webpack-test/blob/993d91f8774918ba7feeb0322f5f04e6d3b51a81/src/Main.purs#L7-L9) using something like [unsafePerformEffect](https://pursuit.purescript.org/packages/purescript-effect/2.0.1/docs/Effect.Unsafe#v:unsafePerformEffect).