microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript

[Feature] Utility type for T[keyof T] or new keyword valueof

Open
#37,642 3 comments 34 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

typeof keyof utlity type

Suggestion

Alternative 1:
Create a new Utility type expressing T[keyof T]
Example Value<T> = T[keyof T].

Alternative 2:
Create a new keyword equivalent to T[keyof T]
Example valueof T = T[keyof T]

Use Cases

While T[keyof T] is short and concise, from my experience a lot of developers new to TypeScript usually have no idea what this means or why it's written like that when they first see it.
I also feel that it's not as easy to Google a the answer to that, in comparison to established utility and advanced types like Pick, Omit, Record, etc. which all have their own entries in the TS documentation.

Additionally Object.keys and Object.values are similar concepts.
The presence of a keyof keyword would suggest a valueof should also exist, yet it's missing and one must employ a "special" approach to replicate.

A simple solution is to write my own custom type for the project, but that just introduces additional abstraction and the knowledge/practice isn't transferable to other projects, without implementing the same custom type somewhere in the code first.

And lastly, and this is not a big issue, but I feel it's redundant having to write the type for T twice in on the same line just a few symbols apart.
With short names such as T it's okay, but with longer type names the code becomes more cumbersome to read.

Examples

type T = {
    a: string;
    b: number
    c: number[]
    ...etc
}

// Value<T> = string | number | number[]...
// valueof T = string | number | number[]...

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.
    Perhaps some conflict on point 8...

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

No files, tests, or entry points are named. Start by reviewing the proposed Value<T> utility type and valueof T keyword alternatives, then determine the language-design and compiler scope needed to choose between them. Done means a settled design and an implementation plan, but the issue does not define acceptance tests.

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.