Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: bigIntLiteral option for using BigInt literals #1063

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 15, 2024

Conversation

bhollis
Copy link
Contributor

@bhollis bhollis commented Jun 14, 2024

Fixes #928. Since I finally got around to contributing, I figured I'd try this old issue out too, and it was surprisingly simple. Entirely up to you whether to trash it or not - it's not a very consequential option and the size optimization should probably be handled by terser/terser#1535 anyway, and it could cause some breakage for users.

Supercedes #932.

@stephenh
Copy link
Owner

Ah this is great, @bhollis , thank you!

@stephenh stephenh merged commit b89fbcb into stephenh:main Jun 15, 2024
7 checks passed
stephenh pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 15, 2024
# [1.179.0](v1.178.0...v1.179.0) (2024-06-15)

### Features

* bigIntLiteral option for using BigInt literals ([#1063](#1063)) ([b89fbcb](b89fbcb)), closes [#928](#928) [#932](#932)
@stephenh
Copy link
Owner

🎉 This PR is included in version 1.179.0 🎉

The release is available on:

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Use bigint literals instead of BigInt constructor.
2 participants