### 🔍 Search Terms React, JSX ### ✅ 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 ### ⭐ Suggestion When suggesting a JSX option, `react` should be deemphasized since it's the old runtime that has been superseded by the new, automatic runtime. ### 📃 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'. ``` ### 💻 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
🔍 Search Terms
React, JSX
✅ Viability Checklist
⭐ Suggestion
When suggesting a JSX option,
reactshould be deemphasized since it's the old runtime that has been superseded by the new, automatic runtime.📃 Motivating Example
💻 Use Cases
Nudge people to use new, automatic transform
Seems to prioritize
reactoverreact-jsxNone