Fábio Santos

Hey! I read this message but haven't had the time to look into it. Posting just to say I hear you and it helped a lot, thanks!

So I worked on this the entire afternoon yesterday. The issue with choosing whether to inline or not is that the size increase isn't easy to compute. The `inline` option...

I'm still pursuing this. I think the trickiest part that I'm tackling at the moment, is this: ``` const DATA_ATTR = "bs.offcanvas"; const EVENT_KEY$3 = `.${DATA_ATTR}`; const EVENT_SHOW$3 = `shown${EVENT_KEY$3}`;...

Sounds like something that would be useful. But if it comes out that functions written in the new binary representation for JavaScript doesn't have proper `toString` methods I'd have to...

Issue in the proposal: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-binary-ast/issues/76

I think this should be kept open! Inspecting argument names may be very useful. Let's see what TC39 decides.

@antonkatz there would be confusion if you were expecting your function arguments to be present, but they are gone after distributing your JavaScript code through the binary AST proposal.

Fixed in `5.28.1`. Any tips on what input code might be triggering this could be helpful. I still don't know what was wrong with the `5.28.0` release.

A repro was already provided here #1496 @Deep1Shikha but thank you!

This is very inconsistent with `keep_fnames` which works as you expect. The second case is definitely valid as well, and should apply to `keep_fnames` too. With `keep_fnames`/`keep_classnames`, moving a class/function...