Allow type annotations in .js files in preparation for Type Annotations proposal

まず、#10939 の以前の議論と、リンクされている TC39 Type Annotations proposal を読んでください。次に、.js ファイル内の TypeScript 専用構文に対する TypeScript コンパイラーの既存の制限を調べ、引き続き許可されない構文を含めて、このオプションの適用範囲を判断してください。ドキュメント化されたコンパイラーオプションによって、実行時に出力される動作を変更せずに、意図した型付き JavaScript のパースがサポートされれば完了です。

🔍 Search Terms

allow js file extension

✅ Viability Checklist

• This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
• This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
• This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
• This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
• This isn't a request to add a new utility type: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/No-New-Utility-Types
• This feature would agree with the rest of our Design Goals: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals

⭐ Suggestion

Add an option to allow removing the error "[some feature] can only be used in TypeScript files"

Previous discussion: #10939

The compiler option would allow consuming .js files as if they were .ts files, but with some differences (see below). All type-checking, type-stripping, and code emitting features would remain as-is.

📃 Motivating Example

The Type Annotations proposal is the definite future of JavaScript.

This feature would:

• Enable incremental adoption of the Type Annotations proposal by users
• Enable incremental support of Type Annotations in the TypeScript compiler
• Possibly help push that proposal forward a little more quickly by increased usage
• Spread word that this proposal exists by gaining compiler support in tsc and its release notes

It's true that the exact syntax isn't definite yet, and it will probably be at least somewhat different than current TypeScript syntax.

However, that's exactly why adding initial support for plain TypeScript would not interfere with its eventually sealed syntax.

In other words, the initial support would simply parse it as "typed-javascript" but the TypedJavaScript parser would currently be exactly the same as the TypeScript parser for the time being, and allow gradual differentiation.

It would also be a good opportunity to allow TypedJavaScript mode to disallow namespaces, enums, constructor fields, etc.

💻 Use Cases

1. What do you want to use this for?

Writing future-ready JavaScript.

3. What shortcomings exist with current approaches?

It doesn't take into account the pending type annotation proposal.

5. What workarounds are you using in the meantime?

I can almost get this working with some VS Code hacks, but then tsc complains as soon as I run it.