Currently, this transform doesn't really have a development behavior really. Exposing this in the transform options is therefore confusing.
What we did when development: true is that we imported from jsx-dev-runtime and called jsxDEV instead of jsx, but that has been more or less regarded as a design flaw of the jsx runtime proposal. These days everyone just aliases jsx-dev-runtime and jsx-runtime to the exact same file and aliases jsxDEV to jsx. The only difference between those functions is that jsxDEV receives more parameters about call location. Everyone just treats that as optional arguments to jsx these days.
For all those reasons it's best if we drop the development option of the precompile transform.
Currently, this transform doesn't really have a
developmentbehavior really. Exposing this in the transform options is therefore confusing.What we did when
development: trueis that we imported fromjsx-dev-runtimeand calledjsxDEVinstead ofjsx, but that has been more or less regarded as a design flaw of the jsx runtime proposal. These days everyone just aliasesjsx-dev-runtimeandjsx-runtimeto the exact same file and aliasesjsxDEVtojsx. The only difference between those functions is thatjsxDEVreceives more parameters about call location. Everyone just treats that as optional arguments tojsxthese days.For all those reasons it's best if we drop the
developmentoption of the precompile transform.