microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Comment inference with type inference
Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.
- Langage dominant
- Go
- Étoiles
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.4k
- Merge moyen
- 1 j 19 h
- PR mergées (30 j)
- 117
Description
Suggestion
🔍 Search Terms
Comment inference, documentation
✅ 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
Infer documentation/comments for inferred types.
📃 Motivating Example
I heavily use functions with dependency injection - this frequently means having a unit version of a function, as well as a convenience version with some of the arguments already applied.
For example, let's say I have a function:
/**
* Great documentation here!
*/
function cook(food: Food, spices: Spice[], pot: Pot, pan: Pan) {
// ...
}
I might have lots of functions like these, all of them may have different dependencies.
Somewhere in the top layers of my application, I'm going to bootstrap my function dependencies using functional applications:
function bootstrap(pot: Pot, pan: Pan) {
return {
cook: (food: Food, spices: Spice[]) => cook(food, spices, pot, pan),
cleanUp: () => cleanUp(pot, pans),
// ...and so on...
}
}
The problem here is, the documentation for the original function is lost.
I don't want to copy/paste all my documentation and maintain several copies. So I'm left with the choice of leaving the internal unit function undocumented, and explicitly writing out an interface for the bootstrap return-type, giving up the convenience of inference - or leaving the bootstrapped functions undocumented.
There aren't really good choices.
Could we have something like this maybe?
function bootstrap(pot: Pot, pan: Pan) {
return {
/** @inferdoc */
cook: (food: Food, spices: Spice[]) => cook(food, spices, pot, pan),
/** @inferdoc */
cleanUp: () => cleanUp(pot, pans),
}
}
This would follow the inferred type to it's type and infer (copy) the documentation from there.
We have something like this for classes with @inheritdoc, but nothing for functions.
💻 Use Cases
Everything. 😄
I don't know of any work-arounds - I would love to hear of any.
IDE support is crucial here. Not repeating documentation is important. Inference is important - I don't want repeated declarations. I'm already repeating the argument declarations, which isn't great, but I don't think there's any way around that? (It's possible the real issue here is that we need stronger inference for function types? Something that works better for very common patterns like functional applications? Might kill two birds with one stone.)
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
Commencez par examiner le comportement actuel de @inheritdoc et les objectifs de conception de TypeScript, puis suivez la manière dont les types inférés et la documentation sont exposés dans la prise en charge des IDE. L’issue ne nomme aucun fichier ni test ; identifiez donc les chemins pertinents du compilateur et de l’éditeur avant de proposer une approche. La tâche sera considérée comme terminée lorsqu’il existera un moyen pris en charge d’inférer la documentation des fonctions sans modifier la sortie d’exécution de JavaScript.
Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.
Évaluation
- Stack technique
- typescript
- Domaine
- compilers, developer-experience
- Type d'issue
- Fonctionnalité
- Difficulté
- 5/5
- Temps estimé
- Plus d'une semaine
- Activité
- À l'abandon
- Clarté
- Plutôt claire
- Accessibilité débutants
- 30/100