OJ Kwon

> why this is in next.js and not directly in SWC It is due to those were external contributions into next.js, as well as it is not directly feasible to...

I gave it a quick go on this and found out top-level array of config was never consistently supported. In some part of swc consumes it, but mostly betrays what...

> I prefer to fix the array config because we can avoid a breaking change Is there a way to make non-breaking changes for this? for example, let's think about...

> based on patterns But patterns can be non-exclusive, in that case how will it works? if config A and B specifies both file, then we'll just take one? and...

> I don't think people will expect it to emit multiple files at once, The way I understood was actually in this way, also @jrieken should double confirm but if...

This is because of some other tools actually behave in multiple-emission way even though it's not 100% same. For example, https://webpack.js.org/configuration/configuration-types/#exporting-multiple-configurations webpack emits multiple bundles based on multiple configuration inputs....

Yes, my general impression so far is this is not a well-defined interface at least. I'd like to approach this in 2 perspective, first would like to confirm original issue's...

Is using bindings api (`transform*`) is no-go? it sounds like most straightforward answer to the requirement. Otherwise, probably invoking cli multiple times per each different config would be a way...

> A full transpile-run using SWC (VS Code and its built-in extension) takes 12s on our CI/CD machines. That is very awesome and improves our daily dev workflow significantly. Great...

> We still need swc_ecmascript Yes, will revert. Is there way we can announce & instruct migrate into swc_core for the users of swc_ecmascript?