Question – should the output be 1 file per package?

Hey, love this. We'd really like to bring into use at https://github.com/rohea.

However, we have always written bindings as 1 file per package. This is really beneficial for namespacing. I can't see how you would avoid module name conflicts in a large codebase with this lib's current approach of producing 1 module/file per component, and an extra one for types called `DistTypes.res`. Am I missing some expected part of the workflow?

Start by reviewing the current output workflow described in the issue: one module/file per component plus DistTypes.res. Determine how package-level files and namespacing should work for large codebases, then document or implement the agreed approach. Done means the module-conflict concern has a clear resolution and the expected output structure is specified.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.