Readme doesn't include "es" format

[GreenImp]

The description of the format option, in the readme file is:

--format — format of the generated parser: amd, commonjs, globals, umd (default: commonjs)

But Peggy includes an es option as well.

It's worth noting that the CLI documentation does have the es type listed:

Format of the generated parser: amd, commonjs, globals, umd, es (default: commonjs).

But, the dependencies section for the JS API says:

valid only when format is set to "amd", "commonjs", or "umd"

Where it should include es" in the list.

I could try and get a PR in to fix these things, but I'm not sure when I'll get the time to do so.

[hildjj]

Waiting on monorepo branch

[StoneCypher]

Requesting the use of the token es2015 to be in keeping with ts, rollup, webpack, rome, etc

Hildjj suggested maintaining es as a synonym, seems fine

[hildjj]

Rollup seems to use es? https://rollupjs.org/guide/en/#outputformat

[hildjj]

Webpack seems to use module: https://webpack.js.org/configuration/output/#librarytarget-module

[hildjj]

I can't figure out what rome is using; they're not doing bundling yet, right?

[StoneCypher]

... huh. i wonder if es2015 is a synonym in rollup now

i guess i'm just wrong about webpack

it's es2015 in typescript because there are subtle differences already for es2018, because it can collide conceptually with the old es4x module notation, and because there's good reason to believe either es9 or es10 will include types, which will change the export spec. i believe typescript is making the right choice.

rome i don't use. it describes itself as a bundler? Rome is a linter, compiler, bundler, and more for JavaScript, TypeScript, JSON, HTML, Markdown, and CSS.\nRome is designed to replace Babel, ESLint, webpack, Prettier, Jest, and others. the reason I expected them to use es2015 is they're written in Typescript and claim complete Typescript compatability, but I was just wrong about rollup, and I can't find it either, so now I'm receding from thinking I know the answer

[StoneCypher]

anyway, if rollup, webpack, and typescript disagree, then i think you can pretty much do what you want

please don't call it prolog

[hildjj]

How about we just accept our status quo for now, document it, and clean it up later if it becomes a problem. We can always add an alias later.

[StoneCypher]

seems fine. i was just appealing for community norms, and it seems there isn't one