alternatively, I could just not use the constant value in those cases and fallback to the other branch - that would likely work. But I feel that NaN and Infinity should not be passed to factory.createNumericLiteral so some changes to this branch of code here would have to be done anyway. I also like that those evaluated, yet shadowed, Infinity and NaN are normalized~ by the proposed changes.

What do you think of this alternative way to write it?

if (!isFinite(value) {
    let result: Node = resolver.isNameReferencingGlobalValueAtLocation("Infinity", member) ?
        factory.createIdentifier("Infinity") :
        factory.createBinaryExpression(factory.createNumericLiteral(0), SyntaxKind.SlashToken, factory.createNumericLiteral(0));
    if (value < 0) {
        result = factory.createPrefixUnaryExpression(SyntaxKind.MinusToken, result);
    }
    return result;
}

I guess that would emit as -(1/0)?

What do you think of this alternative way to write it?

That's what I started with :p
ed2cc57

I guess that would emit as -(1/0)?

and why I changed it to the current version 😉

Are there any more convincing global names that could get shadowed than Infinity and NaN? It's a stretch for people to create local names Infinity or NaN.

I think those are the only 2 that can be produced by the „constant evaluation”

It's a stretch for people to create local names Infinity or NaN.

cant disagree :p the issue was labeled as a bug and not a wontfix, it’s similar to the merged: #55018