This PR adds support for ```uv init --script```, as defined in issue
#7402 (started working on this before I saw jbvsmo's PR). Wanted to
highlight a few decisions I made that differ from the existing PR:
1. ```--script``` takes a path, instead of a path/name. This potentially
leads to a little ambiguity (I can certainly elaborate in the docs,
lmk!), but strictly allowing ```uv init --script path/to/script.py```
felt a little more natural than allowing for ```uv init --script path/to
--name script.py``` (which I also thought would prompt more questions
for users, such as should the name include the .py extension?)
2. The request is processed immediately in the ```init``` method,
sharing logic in resolving which python version to use with ```uv add
--script```. This made more sense to me — since scripts are meant to
operate in isolation, they shouldn't consider the context of an
encompassing package should one exist (I also think this decision makes
the relative codepaths for scripts/packages easier to follow).
3. No readme — readme felt a little excessive for a script, but I can of
course add it in!
---------
Co-authored-by: João Bernardo Oliveira <jbvsmo@gmail.com>
## Summary
We were writing empty lines between the dependencies and the
`tool.uv.sources` table, which led to the `/// script` tag being
unclosed and thus not recognized.
Closes https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/6700.
Should this be user-facing by default? It seems annoying because then
it's unavoidable if you (for whatever reason) have an intentionally
unclosed tag.
Motivated by https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/6700.
