microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript

Could there be a `This` type like the `Self` type in rust ?

Open
#44,055 7 comments 3 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

Suggestion

🔍 Search Terms

This, Self, typeof this

✅ 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

For example, let's declare an interface Cloneable, instances of classes implementing Cloneable should be able to clone themselves:

interface Cloneable {
    clone(): This
}

The return type of function clone() of interface Cloneable should be the actual type of this, or typeof this in the shown code. However typeof this does not work. It will raise TS2304 Cannot find name 'this', and TS4055 Return type of public method from exported class has or is using private name 'this'.

clone(): Cloneable is not the desired way for this interface, or the below code would pass type check:

class A implements Cloneable {
    clone() { return new B() }
}
class B implements Cloneable {
    clone() { return new A() }
}

Besides, clone() is not returning this. So clone(): this is not the right way to go. It won't allow this to pass:

class A implements Cloneable {
    clone() { return new A(this)  }
}

Generics could be a workaround, but it can be annoying for complex cases, and still can be a problem:

class A implements Cloneable<B> {
    clone() { return new B() }
}

It does not make any sense to have sth like class A implements Cloneable<B>, but generics allows it.

Allowing typeof this, or This, could be a very useful in that case.

This feature could also help in some other cases, like interface Addable:

interface Addable {
    add(that: This): This
}

The argument that of function add must be of the same type of this, so it cannot be declared as add(that: Addable): Addable. It also cannot be add(that: this): this.
It makes sense to use generics,

interface Addable<That> {
    add(that: That): That
}

But still, it is not a very good way.

📃 Motivating Example

💻 Use Cases

As discussed above, it is mainly used by interfaces and abstract classes, like interface Cloneable, interface Addable, or maybe interface Serializable and interface Serializer.
The current approaches cannot provide the correct behavior, which is discussed above.
I am using generics, but it is incorrect indeed.

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

The issue names no repository files or tests. Start by reviewing the existing this type behavior and the TypeScript design goals referenced in the issue, then compare the Cloneable and Addable examples with their generic workarounds; done would require settled semantics and an implementation plan for the proposed type.

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
Clearly specified
Newbie friendliness
30/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.