microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Allow `abstract` modifier on construct signature in object type literal
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.4k
- Avg merge
- 1d 19h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 117
Description
🔍 Search Terms
'abstract' modifier cannot appear on a type member
✅ 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
Allow using abstract new … constructor definition keywords in an interface, i.e. in an object form (i.e., within curly braces).
📃 Motivating Example
Consider possible definitions of:
- a function (a callable object),
- a non-abstract constructor,
- an abstract constructor.
All of those definitions can be created through type aliasing:
type Callable = () => void // ✅
type Constructor = new () => void // ✅
type ConstructorAbstract = abstract new () => void // ✅
But only the first two definitions can be created using an object form:
type Callable = { (): void } // ✅
type Constructor = { new (): void } // ✅
type ConstructorAbstract = { abstract new (): void } // ❌
// ^^^^^^^^
// Error: 'abstract' modifier cannot appear on a type member
Apparently, in this form the token new is considered a method name, rather than a keyword.
I suggest making the last one a valid expression by parsing new as a keyword.
💻 Use Cases
This suggestion is mainly for visual consistency, there is no functional change sought to be. To the folks who prefer using interfaces whenever possible (like me), the requirement of using type here is somewhat unreasonable, although it doesn't pose any significant problems.
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
Start by reproducing the accepted type-alias forms and the rejected abstract new object form in the linked TypeScript Playground. Read the motivating examples and determine how the object form should parse and type-check while preserving the existing behavior of callable and non-abstract constructor members. Done means the object-form declaration is accepted and behaves consistently with the equivalent abstract new type alias.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- typescript
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100