[Feature request] ability to declare a static block as pure

[bigopon]

Version

Current latest

Complete CLI command or minify() options used

N/A

terser input

class Abc {
  /*@__PURE__*/static { doThis() }
}

console.log('hi abc');

terser output or error

class Abc {
  static { doThis() }
}

console.log('hi abc');

Expected result

console.log('hi abc');

Visual:

Context

Sometimes there' some groups of classes that share a common setup on their prototypes, so it's more reasonable to use some mixins to apply those methods. Prior to static block, the application of those mixins would have been in separate statements after the classes. But regardless where it is, those calls would mark the class as sideeffectful.
I was hoping with static block enabled this would allow us to treat static block as something "internal" to a class and won't affect the sideeffect analysis of it.

class O1 {
  static {
    mixinA(O1)
    mixinB(O1)
  }
}

[bigopon]

@fabiosantoscode just nudging since Im not sure what I did so wrong that this didnt get any attention 😬

[fabiosantoscode]

Usually /*@__PURE__*/ is a source of a lot of conversation, since it's very subtle, and read by many other tools.

I see the point of marking the whole static as pure, but why not something like (/*@__PURE__*/() => { <pure code here> })()? It's a bit more clunky, but especially compilers can output stuff like it easily.

[bigopon]

You meant

class Abc {}
(/*@__PURE__*/(klass) => {...})(Abc)

Or

class Abc {
 static {
    (/*@__PURE__*/(klass) => {...})()
  }

I can try this, but Im not sure itll work for a library code.