Zanie Blue
Zanie Blue
In that case, your module is defined in a script?
Unless someone can think of another use for the `-m` flag I think it's fine to use for this and should be an easy first contribution. cc @konstin
I don't think implicit behavior is great when executing things, for safety and security reasons. Why not expose script entry points for your modules? https://docs.astral.sh/uv/concepts/projects/#defining-entry-points
> end up in $PATH, in completions, and in a global namespace Fair, but note this isn't the case unless you install the project globally or activate the virtual environment...
I see. Maybe your use-case would be fulfilled by #5903 then. There's also an exploration of module support in https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/pull/7322 — but there was some complexity in the command line...
Okay thanks for your feedback. @j178 do you see a problem with just doing `module: bool` instead of `module: Option`?
This is a duplicate of https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/6298
Can you share more about how you'd use this from an IDE? We're a bit hesitant about adding this interface.
Thanks for the additional context. We'll discuss this and report back here.
As of the latest version... ``` ❯ uv init --script main.py Initialized script at `main.py` ❯ uv add --script main.py anyio Updated `main.py` ❯ uv venv main.venv && uv export...