Modify Parameters Utility in case of union/intersection of function types

Examinez d’abord les exemples de union, d’intersection et de surcharge dans l’issue, y compris les résultats actuels et proposés de Parameters. La tâche est considérée comme terminée lorsque le comportement pour ces cas, y compris les méthodes sur des types d’objet unionnés ou intersectés, correspond à la sémantique proposée sans modifier le comportement à l’exécution.

🔍 Search Terms

Parameters Utility with union of functions
Parameters Utility with intersection of functions

✅ Viability Checklist

• This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
• This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
• This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
• This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
• This isn't a request to add a new utility type: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/No-New-Utility-Types
• This feature would agree with the rest of our Design Goals: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals

⭐ Suggestion

This proposal suggests revising the Parameters utility type.

There are multiple sub-proposals which may be considered independently. The sub-proposals are:

Case 1: The function is a union of function types

// Case 1:
type POr = Parameters< ((x:1|2)=>void) | ((x:2|3)=>void) >;
// Current: [x: 1 | 2] | [x: 2 | 3]
// Proposed: [x: 1 | 2] & [x: 2 | 3]
//  with reduction -> [x: 2]

There is no way to call the function with a value of type 1 or 3 without risking a runtime error. The only safe value is 2. The proposed type reflects this. This agrees with existing TypeScript inference behavior.

declare const f:((x:1|2)=>void) | ((x:2|3)=>void);
f(1); // error;

Therefore the proposed definition is:

Parameters<T|U> = Parameters<T> & Parameters<U>

Because there is no way to generate an & type using a distributed conditional generic type (i.e., the way it currently written, Parameters would have to become an intrinsic type function.

Case 2.x The function type is an intersection or overload of function types

In these cases also Parameters would have to become an intrinsic type function.

Case 2.1 The function type is an intersection of function types

// Case 2.1
type PAnd = Parameters< ((x:1|2)=>void) & ((x:2|3)=>void) >;
// PAnd = [x: 2 | 3]
// Proposed: [x: 1 | 2] | [x: 2 | 3]

Currently TypeScript treats an intersection like an overload list, and then picks the last overload under the assumption that it is the "most permissive catch-all case". This assumption is not always true. When it is not true, Parameters is not useful.

The proposed type could be used as the parameter signature for the implementation of the function intersection.

Case 2.2.1 The function type is an overload type without the catch-all case

// Case 2.2.1
type POverloadNoCover2 = Parameters< {
    (x:1|2):void;
    (x:2|3):void;
}>;
// POverloadNoCover2 = [x: 2 | 3]
// Proposed: [x: 1 | 2] | [x: 2 | 3]

Therefore the proposed definition is:

Parameters<T&U> = Parameters<T> | Parameters<U>

Currently TypeScript picks the last overload under the assumption that it is the "most permissive catch-all case". This assumption is not always true. When it is not true, Parameters is not useful.

The proposed type could be used as the parameter signature of implementation of the function intersection.

Case 2.2.2 The function type is an overload type with the catch-all case

// Case 2.2.2
type POverloaWithCover2 = Parameters< {
    (x:1|2):void;
    (x:2|3):void;
    (x:1|2|3):void;
}>;
// POverloaWitnCover2 = [x: 1 | 2 | 3]
// Proposed: [x: 1 | 2] | [x: 2 | 3] | [x: 1 | 2 | 3]

In this case the proposed type and the current type are the same, and may serve as the parameter signature of implementation of the function intersection.

Methods of unioned/intersected Object types

Methods of unioned/intersected Object types fall within the cases described above.

interface X {
    p: X;
    f(x:X):void;
};
interface Y{
    p: Y;
    f(x:Y):void;
};

// Case 1:
type P1 = Parameters<(X|Y)["f"]>;
// P1 = [x: X] | [x: Y]
// Proposed: [x: X] & [x: Y]

// Case 2.1:
type P2 = Parameters<(X&Y)["f"]>;
// P2 = [x: Y]
// Proposed: [x: X] | [x: Y]

📃 Motivating Example

As shown above.

💻 Use Cases

• It is currently impossible to use Parameters to get the correct type of a union of functions.
• It is currently impossible to use Parameters to get the implementation signature type of an intersection of functions. (Although there are cases where it works, that is not guaranteed.)
• It is currently impossible to use Parameters to get the implementation signature type of a function overload. (Although there are cases where it works, that is not guaranteed.)