microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript

Object literals should have a `this` type too

Open
#33,201 3 comments 1 reaction 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

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

Description

TypeScript Version: 3.7.0-dev.20190831

Search Terms: this return type object composing composition

Code

I tried writing some self-contained parts of objects as a kind of multiple-inheritance or object composition, which I would combine later, and ran into this case.

const a = {
	Clone() {
		return this;
	},
	x: 1,
};

const b = {
	Clone: a.Clone,
	y: 2,
};

console.log(b.Clone().x); // number, bad! Should be an error!
console.log(b.Clone().y); // compiler error, bad! This should be acceptable!

Expected behavior: this, the return type of Clone, should evaluate to typeof b in b.Clone()

Actual behavior: It evaluates to typeof a, since it was defined in a

This can be circumvented by defining this as a type parameter like so:

const a = {
	Clone<T>(this: T) {
		return this;
	},
	x: 1,
}

const b = {
	Clone: a.Clone,
	y: 2
};

console.log(b.Clone().x); // compiler error, good!
console.log(b.Clone().y); // works! Also good!

Another interesting problem at play here though, is that using a type parameter for this also means that TS doesn't know what could be inside of this. This means you have to manually specify whatever members you hope to have access to. It would be nice if you could do T extends typeof a and it would automatically drop all the members of a in there. Right now, it will error if you do this:

'a' implicitly has type 'any' because it does not have a type annotation and is referenced directly or indirectly in its own initializer.ts(7022)

I think all methods like this should, therefore, be implicitly equivalent to the following:

const a = {
	Clone<T extends typeof a>(this: T) {
		console.log(this.x); // should work
		return this;
	},
	x: 1,
}

Then, b.Clone() would error since b is not a superset of a. Unless you did c = Object.assign({}, a, b), and did c.Clone()

Playground Link: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?target=6#code/MYewdgzgLgBAhjAvDA3gKAJAGEA24CmAFAJSqYYBO+UArhWDFABYCWEA3JgL4A0mAHgC4YARjRdOaUJFgAjJGWx4w+YXAB0uAnwwBPYQCZxk6RBA586vAHNCszcqLF1-YuxgB6DzBpgAJvgAZiwqflLgZhZWILb2Wiok6rpunt6gALYADiwWFDD4FBQgFEA

Related Issues: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/29122

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

Start with the linked TypeScript Playground example and compare the inferred return type of Clone when it is copied from a to b. Read the related issue #29122 for context on this behavior. Done means determining and implementing whether object-literal methods should infer this from their containing object's use, while preserving valid access to members of the original object.

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
30/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.