microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
suggestion: explicit "tuple" syntax
まだ誰も着手していません。
- 主要言語
- Go
- スター
- 111k
- フォーク
- 14.3k
- 平均マージ
- 2日 4時間
- マージ済み PR(30日)
- 132
説明
Problem
I'm writing this after encountering (what I think is) #3369. I'm a noob to TS, so I apologize for any misunderstandings on my part. The behavior the lack of type inference here:
interface Foo {
bar: [number, number];
}
interface McBean {
baz: Foo;
}
// error: McMonkey does not implement McBean
class McMonkey implements McBean {
baz = {
bar: [0, 1]
};
}
// vs
// no error
class McMonkey implements McBean {
baz: Foo = {
bar: [0, 1]
};
}
Because array literals are (correctly) inferred to be arrays, TS is limited in its ability to infer "tuple". This means there's an added overhead to working with tuples, and discourages use.
As I see it, the problem is that a tuple is defined using array literal notation.
A Conservative Solution
Adding a type query (?) such as tuple (.e.g tuple) would be better than nothing:
class McMonkey implements McBean {
baz = {
bar: <tuple [number,number]> [0, 1]
};
}
...but this is still clunky, because you'd have to use it just as much as you'd have to explicitly declare the type.
A Radical Solution
There's a precedent (Python) for a tuple syntax of (x, y). Use it:
interface Foo {
bar: (number, number);
}
interface McBean {
baz: Foo;
}
class McMonkey implements McBean {
baz = {
bar: (0, 1)
};
}
Obvious Problem
The comma operator is a thing, so const oops = 0, 1 is valid JavaScript. 0 is just a noop, and the value of oops will be 1. Python does not have a comma operator (which is meaningful in itself).
I've occasionally used the comma operator in a for loop, similar to the MDN article. Declaring var's at the top of a function is/was common:
function () {
var a, b, c;
}
Parens are of course used in the syntax of loops and conditionals, as well as a means of grouping expressions.
A nuance of Python's tuples are that they must contain at one or more commas, which could help:
foo = (0) # syntax error or just `0`; can't recall
foo = (0,) # valid tuple
...or it could actually make matters worse, because (0, ) is an unterminated statement in JavaScript.
That all being said, using the suggested Python-like syntax, it seems difficult but possible for the compiler to understand when the code means "tuple" vs. when it doesn't.
I'd be behind any other idea that'd achieve the same end. I don't know how far TS is willing to diverge from JS, and I imagine significant diversions such as the above are not taken lightly.
(I apologize if something like this has been proposed before; I searched suggestions but didn't find what I was looking for)
コントリビューションガイド
はじめの一歩
- issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
- 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
- リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
- issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。
調査の方向性
タプル推論の例と、明示的な tuple アノテーションと Python 風のタプル構文との比較から始めます。payload にはファイル、テスト、コンパイラのエントリポイントが記載されていません。完了するには、JavaScript のカンマ演算子との曖昧さを解消する構文を選択して仕様化し、その後、示されているケースを検証する必要があります。
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
評価
- 技術スタック
- javascript, typescript
- 領域
- compilers
- issue の種類
- 機能追加
- 難易度
- 5/5
- 見積もり時間
- 1週間以上
- 活発さ
- 停滞
- 明瞭さ
- おおむね明確
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 25/100