microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Accessors should be allowed to be optional
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.3k
- Avg merge
- 1d 19h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 117
Description
Suggestion
Right now accessors are barred from being declared optional. This is a DX regression for decorator users.
🔍 Search Terms
accessor optional
✅ 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
Allow accessors to be declared options;
📃 Motivating Example
Decorating a class field should require as few changes over a non-decorated field as necessary. Disallowing accessors from being optional adds an additional change.
Take a plain class:
class A {
foo?: number;
}
Where you then want to make foo reactive with some library that vends decorators. This would be the change I would expect to make:
import {reactive, Base} from 'some-reactivity-lib';
class A extends Base {
@reactive
accessor foo?: number;
}
But 5.0 requires:
import {reactive, Base} from 'some-reactivity-lib';
class A extends Base {
@reactive
accessor foo: number | undefined;
}
I don't see a semantic problem with optional accessors. They behave very similar to optional fields (with standard field semantics). With useDefineForClassFields and this example:
class C {
accessor foo?: number;
bar?: number;
}
both foo and bar would exist on the runtime object even though they're optional, ie 'foo' in c === 'bar' in c.
💻 Use Cases
More ergonomic decorator usage.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No source files, tests, or entry points are named. Start by reproducing the optional-field and optional-accessor examples in a TypeScript test case, then compare type-checking and emitted/runtime behavior against the issue's stated expectations. Done means optional accessors are accepted without requiring an explicit undefined union and existing behavior remains unchanged.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- javascript, typescript
- Domain
- compilers, developer-experience
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Active
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 48/100