Config for force transpile brs file

[justinMBullard]

Configuration setting added to BsConfig to allow for BRS file to be transpiled like BS file.

[TwitchBronBron]

Should we have separate flags for "run the brs code through the transpiler" and "allow brighterscript features within .brs files"?

The transpileBrs option sounds like the first item, and doesn't make it immediately evident that you can now use brighterscript features within .brs files.

This also doesn't handle whether xml files should be transpiled or not.

Should we have two flags instead, that represent that following actions?

• run brs and xml files through the transpiler (not sure why you'd need to do that though on its own)?
• allow BrighterScript code inside .brs files

[justinMBullard]

Should we have separate flags for "run the brs code through the transpiler" and "allow brighterscript features within .brs files"?

The transpileBrs option sounds like the first item, and doesn't make it immediately evident that you can now use brighterscript features within .brs files.

This also doesn't handle whether xml files should be transpiled or not.

Should we have two flags instead, that represent that following actions?

* run brs and xml files through the transpiler (not sure why you'd need to do that though on its own)?

* allow BrighterScript code inside .brs files

I think just one setting to enable BrighterScript code in .brs files. My intent is to enable legacy code bases to work with BrighterScript. When I evaluate the ability to do traspiling I can already (and am already) doing some of that in existing compiler plug-in model.

I am asking myself...What does transiling files mean to the BrighterScript Compiler if BrighterScript is not enabled? The answer I give myself is nothing. But I am new to the project and don't have a historical background.

@TwitchBronBron Should i change transpileBrs to brighterScriptInBrs?

[TwitchBronBron]

Currently, brightscript files that have zero AST changes will be copied as-is, and won't run through the transpiler. So in my head, that's a separate thing from "allow brighterscript features in brightscript files". However, that's just a product of the current design. Also, plugins that modify the AST would also need to transpile their files even if not using brighterscript syntax enhancements. Perhaps you're right, there is no real difference from an end-user perspective?

I've been thinking maybe we should name this so that it's more clear that you're allowing brighterscript features to be written within the .brs file extension. Maybe something like

• allowBsInBrs
• allowBrighterScriptInBrightScript
• treatBrsAsBs

[elsassph]

I kind of like transpileBrs, but it should be clear what it means.

[justinMBullard]

@TwitchBronBron @elsassph
How about allowBrighterScriptInBrs or transpileBrsWithBrighterScript?

[justinMBullard]

@TwitchBronBron @elsassph Any decision on the name of the setting?

[TwitchBronBron]

I'm leaning towards allowBrighterScriptInBrightScript. @elsassph @chrisdp any objections? I'd like to get this finalized early this week. It's waited long enough (I'm sorry @justinMBullard for the delay).

[justinMBullard]

I'm leaning towards allowBrighterScriptInBrightScript. @elsassph @chrisdp any objections? I'd like to get this finalized early this week. It's waited long enough (I'm sorry @justinMBullard for the delay).

@TwitchBronBron Should I make name change?

[TwitchBronBron]

Yeah, go ahead and make the change. Sorry for being so slow on this. Let's go with allowBrighterScriptInBrightScript.

[justinMBullard]

Yeah, go ahead and make the change. Sorry for being so slow on this. Let's go with allowBrighterScriptInBrightScript.
@TwitchBronBron I made the change and also Rename transpile-br to allow-brighterscript-in-brightscript.

[TwitchBronBron]

Looks great. Just a few small suggestions.