PR: Mispelling inferences

Would a PR for something like this be welcome:

// Simple example of making inferences through spelling
const some = Promis // <- misspelled Promise

When linting this code, eslint would output something like so:

Unexpected token 'Promis'. Did you mean 'Promise'?

instead of:

Parsing Error: Unexpected token.

[ilyavolodin]

In that case, no-undef already notifies you about usage of undefined variables. What’s the advantage of us guessing what you might’ve meant if the rule already points you to the location of the wrong variable? Chances are, we can’t really guess correctly what was supposed to be there in the first place. User would know much better what he was planning to type there. I don’t see this is useful enough to justify complexity that this would add to one of the most widely used rules out there. Overall I’m 👎 on this, sorry.

[platinumazure]

I’m not sure I understand why the example would give a parse error. Are you using ecmaVersion: 6 or later?

The no-undef rule should already flag this sort of thing.