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

Seperate presets for maximum compatibility and convenience #50

Open
Richienb opened this issue Oct 13, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Seperate presets for maximum compatibility and convenience #50

Richienb opened this issue Oct 13, 2023 · 4 comments

Comments

@Richienb
Copy link
Owner

Richienb commented Oct 13, 2023

One preset will be as if webpack never removed the feature, and another preset (the new default) will remove all the polyfills that have no practical purpose (#44. #20), setting mostly everything else that is yet to be polyfilled as no-ops (#41). - biggest change is noticable for the globals.

@Richienb
Copy link
Owner Author

@afonsojramos thoughts?

@afonsojramos
Copy link
Contributor

afonsojramos commented Oct 16, 2023

I'm going to suggest a different approach. What do you think of accepting an argument that defines which modules should not be polyfilled? I suppose that most people want as much as they can, and, if they don't want them, they can just disable them manually.

@Richienb
Copy link
Owner Author

Richienb commented Dec 6, 2023

What do you think of accepting an argument that defines which modules should not be polyfilled?

This is already an option called excludeAliases.

I suppose that most people want as much as they can, and, if they don't want them, they can just disable them manually.

I don't think so. People in the past have gotten confused by what they thought were polyfills which actually turned out to be shims. So, I want to make it obvious what isn't supported.

@afonsojramos
Copy link
Contributor

afonsojramos commented Dec 11, 2023

However, this package doesn't even have fs fallback, so setting it as false definitely helps and enhances the usability of this package. Please reconsider #45. People request it for a reason.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants