### π Search Terms React, JSX ### β Viability Checklist - [x] This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code - [x] This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code - [x] This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions - [x] This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.) - [x] This isn't a request to add a new utility type: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/No-New-Utility-Types - [x] This feature would agree with the rest of our Design Goals: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals ### β Suggestion When suggesting a JSX option, `react` should be deemphasized since it's the old runtime that has been superseded by the new, automatic runtime. ### π Motivating Example ``` tsc index.tsx --jsx error TS6044: Compiler option 'jsx' expects an argument. error TS6046: Argument for '--jsx' option must be: 'preserve', 'react-native', 'react', 'react-jsx', 'react-jsxdev'. ``` ### π» Use Cases 1. What do you want to use this for? Nudge people to use new, automatic transform 1. What shortcomings exist with current approaches? Seems to prioritize `react` over `react-jsx` 1. What workarounds are you using in the meantime? None
π Search Terms
React, JSX
β Viability Checklist
β Suggestion
When suggesting a JSX option,
reactshould be deemphasized since it's the old runtime that has been superseded by the new, automatic runtime.π Motivating Example
π» Use Cases
Nudge people to use new, automatic transform
Seems to prioritize
reactoverreact-jsxNone