microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Make calling "pseudo-overloads" behave more like calling true overloads
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
- Lingua principale
- Go
- Stelle
- 111k
- Fork
- 14.3k
- Merge medio
- 2g 4h
- PR unite (30g)
- 132
Descrizione
Suggestion
🔍 Search Terms
rest tuple, union, overloads, contextual typing
✅ Viability 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, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
- This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.
⭐ Suggestion
Bring the behavior when calling "pseudo-overloaded" functions (functions whose rest parameter is of a union of tuple types) in line with the behavior when calling "true overloaded" functions.
📃 Motivating Example
When you call a true overloaded function, the compiler will, for example, contextually type a callback parameter based on the resolved call signature:
function overloads(v: string, f: (v: string) => void): void;
function overloads(v: number, f: (v: number) => void): void;
function overloads() { }
overloads(123, (v: number) => v.toFixed());
overloads("abc", (v: string) => v.toUpperCase());
overloads(123, v => v.toFixed()); // okay
Whereas the "pseudo-overloaded" version of this (which IntelliSense presents as overloads as of #38234), the compiler is not able to do such contextual typing:
function restTuple(...args:
[v: string, f: (v: string) => void] |
[v: number, f: (v: number) => void]
) { }
// 1/2 restTuple(v: string, f: (v: string) => void): void
// 2/2 restTuple(v: numbger, f: (v: number) => void): void
restTuple(123, (v: number) => v.toFixed());
restTuple("abc", (v: string) => v.toUpperCase());
restTuple(123, v => v.toFixed()); // error!
// ----------> ~
// Parameter 'v' implicitly has an 'any' type.
It would be nice (although I understand that it might not be easily done) if callers could treat pseudo-overloads as true overloads, or at least more like true overloads.
💻 Use Cases
None of these are show-stoppers, btw
allow refactoring of overloads/generics to pseudo-overloads without affecting callers
In situations where the return type of a function does not depend on the parameter types, you can get some better behavior inside a function implementation with a pseudo-overload instead of either a generic that extends a union (see #13995) or a true overload (#18533):
function gen<K extends "s" | "n">(type: K, val: { s: string, n: number }[K]): string {
return (type === "s") ? val.toUpperCase() : val.toFixed(); // error! can't narrow K this way
}
function ovl(type: "s", val: string): string;
function ovl(type: "n", val: number): string;
function ovl(type: "s" | "n", val: string | number) {
return (type === "s") ? val.toUpperCase() : val.toFixed(); // error! type and val are uncorrelated
}
function pseudo(...args: [type: "s", val: string] | [type: "n", val: number]): string {
const [type, val] = args;
(type === "s") ? val.toUpperCase() : val.toFixed(); // error, type and val are still uncorrelated, #30581
return (args[0] === "s") ? args[1].toUpperCase() : args[1].toFixed(); // but this works!
}
I'm not thrilled about not being able to destructure args before the check of args[0], but at least it's possible to get some discriminated union type checking in the implementation. From the caller's side, though, it would be nice if I didn't have to worry about the difference between ovl()'s and pseudo()'s call signatures. And since IntelliSense presents them as overloads in some situations, it can lead to confusion when two "same" functions behave differently at call sites.
programmatic generation of overloaded function call signatures:
If pseudo-overloads behaved more like overloads from the caller side, I'd have no reservations suggesting something like this:
type Params = [type: "s", val: string] | [type: "n", val: number] | [type: "b", val: boolean]
declare const p: (...args: Params) => string;
p("s", "");
p("n", 1);
p("b", true);
Otherwise, I need to do something union-to-intersection-like the following:
declare const o:
(Params extends infer P ? P extends Params ?
(x: (...args: P) => string) => void : never : never
) extends ((x: infer F) => void) ? F : never;
o("s", "");
o("n", 1);
o("b", true);
which is fun but ugly.
Related issues:
#31977: better intellisense for discriminated union tuples
#38234: treat functions with unions of rest tuples as a rest argument as "pseudo-overloads"
Guida per i contributori
Apri la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Direzione di ricerca
Inizia dagli esempi motivanti che confrontano i veri overload e i parametri rest contenenti unioni di tuple. Esamina le issue correlate #31977 e #38234, quindi determina come il contextual typing dovrebbe risolvere il parametro del callback. Il lavoro è completato quando le chiamate pseudo-overloaded supportano il contextual typing desiderato, simile a quello degli overload, senza modificare il comportamento a runtime.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Valutazione
- Stack tecnologico
- typescript
- Ambito
- compilers
- Tipo di issue
- Funzionalità
- Difficoltà
- 5/5
- Tempo stimato
- Più di una settimana
- Stato di attività
- Ferma
- Chiarezza
- Abbastanza chiara
- Idoneità per principianti
- 30/100