microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript

Suggestion: Allow interfaces to "implement" (vs extend) other interfaces

Open
#24,274 29 comments 60 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Awaiting More Feedback Suggestion
Dominant language
Go
Stars
111k
Forks
14.3k
Avg merge
2d 4h
Merged PRs (30d)
132

Description

Search Terms

interface, implements

Suggestion

Allow declaring that an interface "implements" another interface or interfaces, which means the compiler checks conformance, but unlike the "extends" clause, no members are inherited:

interface Foo {
  foo(): void;
}

interface Bar implements Foo {
  foo(): void; // must be present to satisfy type-checker
  bar(): void;
}

Use Cases

It is very common for one interface to be an "extension" of another, but the "extends" keyword is not a universal way to make this fact explicit in code. Because of structural typing, the fact that one interface is assignable to another is true with or without "extends," so you might say the "extends" keyword serves primarily to inherit members, and secondarily to document and enforce the relationship between the two types. Inheriting members comes with a readability trade-off and is not always desirable, so it would be useful to be able to document and enforce the relationship between two interfaces without inheriting members.

Consider code such as:

import { GestureHandler } from './GestureHandler'
import { DropTarget } from './DropTarget'

export interface DragAndDropHandler extends GestureHandler {
  updateDropTarget(dropTarget: DropTaget): void;
}

function createDragAndDropHandler(/*...*/): DragAndDropHandler {
  //...
}

While this code is not bad, it is notable that DragAndDropHandler omits some of its members simply because it has a relationship with GestureHandler. What are those members? What if I would like to declare them explicitly, just as I would if GestureHandler didn't exist, or if DragAndDropHandler were a class that implemented GestureHandler? I could write them in, but the compiler won't check that I have included all of them. I could omit extends GestureHandler, but then the type-checking will happen where DragAndDropHandler is used as a GestureHandler, not where it is defined.

What I really want to do is be explicit about — and have the compiler check — that I am specifying all members of this interface, and also that it conforms to GestureHandler.

I would like to be able to write:

export interface DragAndDropHandler implements GestureHandler {
  updateDropTarget(dropTarget: DropTaget): void;
  move(gestureInfo: GestureInfo): void
  finish(gestureInfo: GestureInfo, success: boolean): void
}

Examples

See above

Checklist

My suggestion meets these guidelines:

  • 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. new expression-level syntax)

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

The issue names no files or tests. Start by tracing how the compiler handles interface extends declarations and reviewing the discussion for an agreed design; then define conformance without member inheritance. Add compiler tests covering the examples and verify that the new syntax checks required members without changing emitted JavaScript.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
typescript
Domain
compilers
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
35/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.