I'd assume you would look into comparing the result with UglifyJS, or even
> its new UglifyJS 2.
I'm planning to compare results with them and refactor (or implement better
compressing optimization fix) esmangle and escodegen.
As for non-mangling syntax simplification, should this be another
> (micro)library? It could be still useful for pure optimization purposes,
Sounds good. So I'll implement them as another `pass` module, thanks for
> even without further mangling step.
your advice :)
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Ariya Hidayat <ariya.hida...@gmail.com>wrote: