Add more implicit function naming examples to "keep names" section #8
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds a few more examples of implicit function naming to the "keep names" section.
I suppose given the final case, "the name property on functions defaults to a nearby identifier" doesn't quite describe where the name comes from, as
'f' + 'n'is not an identifier. But I'm not sure what a better phrasing is.minifydoesn't do anything which would change the function name in these cases, sokeepNamesdoesn't need to handle it. Though in future ifminifycondensed{x: 1}.xto just1, as Terser does,keepNameswould need to deal with this case.