@littledan thanks for the response!
The point of the discussion is in relation to being able to rely on the ability of setting predictable defaults of a type.
I often use things like a Boolean constructor or a Number constructor to set "empty" values of a type so I was quite surprised to not see the same interface from BigInt when I came across this caveat.
I'm very much in favor of not including a new keyword for a primitive type. I'd just like to be able to fall back on the language for telling me what its "empty" value should be for a given type.
A good use case for something like this would be a schema builder where you would pass Constructors as the type of data a field should be, and then the tool would initialize default values for you.
If you'd like to see a some demo code, I could write something crude to illustrate it in code if you like. Just let me know.