feat: support generic type name: `Record<name: string, value: string>`

🔍 Search Terms

generic type name

✅ Viability Checklist

• 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 isn't a request to add a new utility type: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/No-New-Utility-Types
• This feature would agree with the rest of our Design Goals: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals

⭐ Suggestion

support Record<name: string, value: string>

📃 Motivating Example

Without Reocrd, we can write:

interface Obj {
  [name: string]: string
}

Although value: string is still missing here, we have name info, but we can't archive same thing via Record util.

💻 Use Cases

1. What do you want to use this for?

All generic types

2. What shortcomings exist with current approaches?

I don't see any downsides

4. What workarounds are you using in the meantime?

No type name

Start by comparing the proposed Record<name: string, value: string> syntax with the motivating interface index signature and the existing Record utility type. Done means the intended generic type-name behavior is specified clearly enough to assess its type-checking impact; the issue names no files or tests to run.