microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Suggestion: Allow interfaces to "implement" (vs extend) other interfaces
Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.
- Langage dominant
- Go
- Étoiles
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.3k
- Merge moyen
- 2 j 4 h
- PR mergées (30 j)
- 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)
Guide de contribution
Ouvrir le guide de contribution
Par où commencer
- Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
- Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
- Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
- Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.
Piste de recherche
L’issue ne mentionne aucun fichier ni test. Commencez par retracer la manière dont le compilateur traite les déclarations de interface extends et par examiner la discussion pour y trouver un design convenu ; définissez ensuite la conformité sans héritage de membres. Ajoutez des tests du compilateur couvrant les exemples et vérifiez que la nouvelle syntaxe vérifie les membres requis sans modifier le JavaScript généré.
Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.
Évaluation
- Stack technique
- typescript
- Domaine
- compilers
- Type d'issue
- Fonctionnalité
- Difficulté
- 5/5
- Temps estimé
- Plus d'une semaine
- Activité
- À l'abandon
- Clarté
- Plutôt claire
- Accessibilité débutants
- 35/100