rockerest’s Twitter Archive—№ 19,158

What if instead of formalizing TS, the proposal is to allow alternate parsers via a combination of proposal-built-in-modules and proposal-import-assertions?
Permalink On twitter.com 2022 Mar 11 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @rockerest
For example: import file from "file.ts" assert { "type": "typescript" } with { "parser": "js:parse:typescript" }
On twitter.com 2022 Mar 11 Mood 0

…in reply to @rockerest
Or built-in modules wouldn't even be necessary. If the import assertion "type" is formalized as allowing a with transformer that can provide a parser, the provided parser can be ANY language that follows some allowed API shape. Presumably, it could also provide the "type".
Permalink On twitter.com 2022 Mar 11 Mood 0

…in reply to @rockerest
Or conversely, maybe the assertion is {"type": "text"} and the with transformer allows non-standard syntax parsers.
Permalink On twitter.com 2022 Mar 11 Mood 0

…in reply to @rockerest
Granted: with doesn't exist yet. I think changing which language you are running via import flags and (developer-provided?) special parsers is better than changing ECMAScript for everyone. This also allows total freedom without locking in the current paradigm.
Permalink On twitter.com 2022 Mar 11 Mood +5 🙂