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

Support for ECMA script 6 #482

Closed
mkappelhof opened this issue Jul 4, 2017 · 9 comments
Closed

Support for ECMA script 6 #482

mkappelhof opened this issue Jul 4, 2017 · 9 comments

Comments

@mkappelhof
Copy link

When compiling my code with ECMA script 6 class definitions class ClassName{ [code] } i get the following:

Warning: Uglification failed.
Unexpected token: name (ClassName).
Line 1 in script.js

I've read your comment here here, so is it an option (don't really know how these things work) to add uglify-js-es6 to this wrapper?

@alexlamsl
Copy link
Contributor

Closing as duplicate of #480 - please use harmony branch for ES6 support, which depends on uglify-es.

@mkappelhof
Copy link
Author

Works perfect! Thx

@FromStoneage
Copy link

can we get this change to master? for those that rely on ES6 support every time the master branch updates the harmony's rebase caused shrinkwrap unable to find the dependency and we have to fix the build.

What's preventing this feature to be merged to master?

@jakubboucek
Copy link

jakubboucek commented Sep 25, 2019

Is here any stable & non-deprecated way to uglify ES6 now?

@nise
Copy link

nise commented Nov 29, 2019

Are there any updates?

@ImLoaD
Copy link

ImLoaD commented Sep 29, 2020

Branch #harmony is more than 3 years old,
Any updates?

@ShakMR
Copy link

ShakMR commented Jun 4, 2021

Branch #harmony is more than 3 years old,
Any updates?

just in case someone finds this issue first, it is deprecated and we should be using terser instead. See:
#541

@alexlamsl
Copy link
Contributor

Incorrect − current version of uglify-js supports latest version of ECMAScript, so using grunt-contrib-uglify without the harmony branch is sufficient.

@ShakMR
Copy link

ShakMR commented Jun 7, 2021

@alexlamsl you are right. Sorry, ignore my comment.

I went only over the changelog. I think this is important enough to be stated there explicly. Issue here for reference: #554

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

7 participants