Type logical operators "and", "or" and "not" in extends clauses for mapped types

Search Terms

Pretty much the ones in the title...

Suggestion

I would like the ability to use logical operators for types.

I am aware that not is already planned as a feature, but I would like to make sure that this gets further extended to other logical operators, and I couldn't find any hints that this is in your minds already.

Use Cases

Type composition, better readability...

Examples

Current tricks to get to the desired behavior:

type Not<T extends boolean> = T extends true ? false : true

type Or<A extends boolean, B extends boolean> = A extends true
    ? true
    : B extends true
        ? true
        : false

type Or3<A extends boolean, B extends boolean, C extends boolean> = Or<A, Or<B, C>>

type And<A extends boolean, B extends boolean> = A extends true
    ? B extends true
        ? true
        : false
    : false

A few arbitrary use cases:

type Primitive = boolean | number | string | symbol | null | undefined | void
type IsA<T, E> = T extends E ? true : false

type IsIndexSignature<P> = Or<IsA<string, P>, IsA<number, P>>

type IsCallback<F extends Function> = F extends (...args: any[]) => any
    ? And<Not<IsA<Parameters<F>[0], Primitive>>, IsA<Parameters<F>[0], Event>> extends true
        ? true
        : false
    : false

All together in the Playground: here

Desired syntactic sugar to write the same:

type IsIndexSignature<P> = IsA<string, P> or IsA<number, P>

type IsCallback<F extends Function> = F extends (...args: any[]) => any
    ? not IsA<Parameters<F>[0], Primitive> and IsA<Parameters<F>[0], Event> extends true
        ? true
        : false
    : false

It would make the most sense to accompany this with better support for boolean checks in type definitions. That is, to allow to use the ternary operator directly without the constant need for extends true everywhere. Possibly, a new sort of "boolean type declaration" could be introduced, as to avoid having to propagate the boolean value all the way. For example, it should be possible to define KnownKeys (not full implementation here) like this:

type KnownKeys<T> = {
    [P in keyof T]: IsIndexSignature<P> ? never : T[P]
}

Without the need to do:

type KnownKeys<T> = {
    [P in keyof T]: IsIndexSignature<P> extends true ? never : T[P]
}

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. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, etc.)
• This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.

Beginne mit den Playground-Beispielen des Issues und vergleiche die angeforderte Syntax mit dem bestehenden Verhalten von TypeScript bei Conditional Types und Mapped Types. Prüfe, wie Typdefinitionen derzeit boolesche Ergebnisse ausdrücken, und bestimme den Umfang der Unterstützung von and, or und not in extends-Klauseln. Erledigt ist die Aufgabe, wenn die Beispiele des Vorschlags unterstützt werden, ohne das erzeugte JavaScript zu ändern, und eine geeignete Validierung des Typsystems vorhanden ist.