A Pragmatic, Not-Really-Typed Errors Proposal

✅ 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

I know that typed errors have been discussed extensively and rejected — for very good reasons. I don't disagree with any of those reasons. After reading issue #13219 in its entirety, though, I believe I have a proposal that would improve TypeScript’s error handling without introducing any of the drawbacks @RyanCavanaugh outlined when closing that issue.

Specifically, this proposal does not change any of the following core properties of TS’ error model:

• The assignability of two function types is unaffected by what errors they might throw. Accordingly, library authors can start throwing a new exception from a function and that is not a breaking change. Also, the errors that a function can throw will never prevent it from being passed to another function.

• Soundness is preserved. TypeScript will not misleadingly indicate that the value reaching a catch block is narrower than unknown; instead, the code in a catch block is forced to assume the value could be anything.

• Library authors do not need to manually document their functions’ exceptions, or know what exceptions might be thrown by the functions they call.

• TypeScript will not force the caller to handle certain types of exceptions. (I.e., no checked exceptions.)

Motivation & Alternatives

To use @RyanCavanaugh’s terminology, there are certain “unavoidable” errors that represent an operation’s rare-but-anticipatable failure cases.

Throughout the ecosystem today — including in the standard library, web APIs, and most third-party libraries — these unavoidable errors are almost always delivered to callers as exceptions (i.e., with throw). Even if I want to use a Result type or union return types in my own code, I’m still going to have to interoperate with lots of external code that throws exceptions.

If my code cares about handling any of these ‘something went wrong’ failure cases, I need to know what exception is thrown in each case (even if only to lift the exception into an Err Result).

As the TypeScript team pointed out, these exceptions often aren’t laid out in a rich class hierarchy, but there is usually some fairly-stable way to identify them (e.g., by their code or name property). Therefore, the primary barrier to handling these exceptions well is that they’re often undocumented, and the documentation that does exist often isn’t exposed in a convenient way (e.g., in an IDE popup).

The primary goal of this proposal, then, is to:

1. use TS’ inference abilities to dramatically level up the documentation of exceptions across the whole ecosystem. Instead of relying on manually-written @throws annotations — which are often missing, outdated, or incomplete — TS can infer a lot of information about a function’s potential errors and serialize that information out to declaration files so it can be shared across package boundaries; then
2. make the relevant potential errors more visible to developers (e.g., in IDE popups), both when they call a function and when they're handling an exception in a catch block.

The list of errors the developer will be reminded of cannot be exhaustive, for very practical reasons that @RyanCavanaugh has mentioned. But reminding them about many of the potential errors is possible, and should make for better, more-reliable code than the status quo. Various other commenters made this argument as well, often with good examples.

Why not union or Result types?

The Typescript team’s response in #13219 suggested that, instead of TS trying to expose what exceptions might reach a catch block, code should communicate its errors with union return types or Result types, which naturally preserve information about error cases in the type system. But, empirically, these alternatives haven’t taken off, and there are good reasons why:

• The standard library can’t be changed, so it’s stuck throwing exceptions.

• Third-party libraries could switch to union return types, but doing so would force their users to type test the return value after every operation. Given how often JS code doesn’t care about handling the error cases, library authors are unlikely to want to force this inconvenience onto their users.

• Third-party libraries could switch to returning Results, but that would be impractical because JS doesn't have a standard Result type: different libraries would use slightly different Result types; every library would have to explain its Result type to its users; and these various Result types still wouldn’t interoperate well (e.g., in combinators like Result.all).

• The code that I write in my application could use a Result type, at least, but even that might not be worthwhile. Because third-party code throws pervasively for ‘unavoidable’ errors, I’d have to adapt all the external code I rely on to return a Result instead. That is quite hard/cumbersome today, given the lack of exception documentation, which makes it difficult to identify all the exceptions that should be, and can safely be, converted to Err results. This proposal would address that missing documentation. But, even if I'm willing — and, with this proposal, more able — to adapt all the external code I work with to Result, using Result has downsides:

  • it imposes a readability tax from nested callbacks/“callback hell” (because JS lacks something like do notation);
  • it introduces complexity, as there are now more “tracks” for errors to go down (i.e., thrown errors and promise rejections get supplemented by Err results and Promises that resolve to Err results);
  • it makes it harder to onboard new team members, who must learn the Result API and learn which errors should be delivered on which tracks.

  For these reasons, which I think explain why Result’s adoption in JS has been fairly limited, it would be very compelling to skip all the adaptation of third-party code and instead have my own application code throw as well — if the primary downside of doing so (i.e., that the thrown exception types become completely invisible to callers) could be addressed. This proposal tackles that, so hopefully it creates a method of error handling within an application that's better than what can be achieved with Result today.

The Proposal

Imagine a type called UnknownError. UnknownError is like unknown, except that it can be put in a union with other types and that union won't be reduced. So UnknownError, UnknownError | SyntaxError, UnknownError | TypeError and unknown are all distinct types, but are mutually assignable to each other, because they all contain a top type.

Now, imagine that every function type has an associated union type of the error types that it can throw. Let's call this the ErrType of the function. This type always contains UnknownError, and UnknownError can't be removed from it; TS adds it implicitly and unconditionally. In other words, every function is always assumed to be able to throw anything, which is why a function's ErrType doesn't end up effecting its assignability.[^1]

Any types added to a function's ErrType union besides UnknownError represent an incomplete set of specific exception types that might be expected when calling that function. This would ideally include most of its "unavoidable" exception types, in @RyanCavanaugh's terminology, and perhaps a few others.

I'll describe in more detail later how this ErrType would be be determined, but, at a high level, it would use a combination of information from declaration files and inference powered by control flow analysis.

Of course, neither CFA nor the declaration files would be perfect or complete — but they wouldn't need to be! For example, when the declaration file for a library (probably one not written in TS) doesn't list some of its exceptions, those exceptions won't be able to show up in the inferred ErrType of functions that call the library. But that doesn't compromise soundness, because UnknownError is still part of the ErrType; it just gives the caller slightly fewer hints about what errors might be thrown. On the other extreme, CFA might add to the ErrType an error that, in context, could never occur — but this also doesn't harm anything.

Putting these ideas together, consider a slightly-modified version of @RyanCavanaugh's example from #13219:

// `throws XXX` means the function's `ErrType` is `UnknownError | XXX`
declare function doSomething(): void throws RangeError;
declare function doSomethingElse(it: string): void throws SyntaxError;

const justThrow: () => void = () => {
  throw new TypeError("don't call me yet");
};

function foo(callback: () => void) {
  try {
    callback();
    doSomething();
    doSomethingElse("blah blah");
  } catch (e) {
    // e: ?
    if (e instanceof RangeError) {
      return 0;
    }
    throw e;
  }
}

foo(justThrow);

The type of e above would be UnknownError | RangeError | SyntaxError.[^2] That is, the type of e in a catch block is simply the union of the ErrTypes of any functions called in the try block, plus the types of any errors thrown explicitly in the try block, but excluding errors that CFA determines can’t escape the try block (say because they’re thrown from a nested try block with its own catch).

While still being sound — UnknownError includes the TypeError that is actually thrown at runtime — UnknownError | RangeError | SyntaxError is more useful than unknown or any. It lets foo give special attention to the anticipatable error cases, some of which it may be able to recover from, without TS pretending like those are the only possible errors.

Meanwhile, the IDE popup that a user would see when hovering over foo would show the inferred definition of foo that would be emitted in a declaration file, i.e. something like foo(callback: () => void): void throws SyntaxError. Seeing throws SyntaxError is a potentially useful reminder to callers to, e.g., devise a fallback value for the error case.

A core strength of this proposal is that it can be adopted incrementally:

• existing declaration files can be used on day one without compromising soundness;
• improvements to those declaration files over time (to list more errors) won't generate type errors in downstream code, but will make this feature more useful;
• mistakes in declaration files (e.g., from misunderstandings around exactly what errors to list or how to indicate what errors propagate if thrown by function-valued arguments) have minimal consequences;
• declaration file improvements should come quickly, whenever a TS-based library is recompiled and republished, because a huge amount of this error information will be inferred;
• errors thrown at the application-level will be fully tracked from day one (as TS will have access to the application's full source), making for a viable Result alternative.

Finally, this all happens while working with the grain of existing, idiomatic JS code, rather than trying to fight against the throwing that's all over the ecosystem.

The Details

Inferring a function’s ErrType

Including UnknownError in every function’s ErrType frees us from the impossible task of creating an exhaustive list of each function’s errors; with that freedom, we can instead ask: What potential exceptions would be most useful to show the developer in a function’s ErrType and would promote good exception handling?

I see a few kinds of exceptions that ought to be treated differently:

1. There’s the set of “something went wrong” errors that the function’s author clearly anticipated. These will usually be errors that the function throws directly (as opposed to errors thrown by a function it calls). These should obviously be included in the function’s ErrType.

2. On the other extreme are exceptions that the function’s author clearly didn’t plan for. These are exceptions that, if they were to occur, would occur outside a try block. They often include exceptions that arise if the function’s input doesn’t match its contract/TS types, and errors that TS might have known were possible (e.g., JSON.parse producing a SyntaxError) but that the function’s author assumed couldn’t occur in context. The function’s caller can’t safely handle these exceptions, because the program could be in an invalid state, so making them visible in the ErrType would encourage unsafe code. Moreover, if the function’s author assumed that a potential error wouldn’t occur in a given context (e.g., when constructing a RegExp from a known-good literal string), including that error in the ErrType probably just adds counterproductive noise.

3. Finally, there are cases where the function’s author anticipated that calling some other function might throw an exception; accordingly, the function: 1) wrapped it’s call to the other function in a try-catch or try-finally, 2) did any cleanup needed to leave the program in a valid state after the exception, but then 3) simply passed the exception through to the caller. In these cases, I think the errors from the called function's ErrType should be included in the main function’s inferred ErrType, because it’s safe for the main function’s callers to catch these exceptions, and doing so might occasionally be useful; as @RyanCavanaugh said, you might do it ”once or twice, for example, to issue a retry on certain HTTP error codes”. Moreover, including them reflects the reality that the function is leaking information about its underlying implementation (by passing these exceptions along).

Based on this classification, I’d propose the following concrete rules for ErrType inference:

1. Any time throw x appears in a function’s body, the type of x is added to the function’s ErrType, unless CFA determines that that exception cannot escape from the function (i.e., it’s caught and handled within the function). An error thrown from an unreachable branch (e.g. the default case of a switch that’s meant to be exhaustive) is considered unable to escape the function. Broadly, this rule covers the first class of exceptions outlined above.

2. Any time a function is called in the try block of a try-finally, the called function’s ErrType is added to the outer function’s ErrType (excluding those errors that CFA can verify will not escape the function, thanks to an outer catch). This rule covers the third class of exceptions above. Note that this rule applies only to function calls in try-finally statements with no catch; in try-catch or try-catch-finally statements, an exception can only escape the statement if it’s thrown explicitly from the catch or the finally block, so it will fall under the first rule.

3. The ErrTypes of all other functions called within a function are not added to that function’s ErrType. This covers the second class of exceptions above. There is one special case here: never-returning functions are assumed to be called only for the errors they throw, so they’re treated according to rule 1 (ie, as though an explicit throw had occurred at the point where the never-returning function was called, and the type of the thrown value was the never-returning function’s ErrType).

In addition, I’d propose the following bit of new syntax: someFn() throws XXX. This syntax makes it more ergonomic to express the rare-ish case where (some of) the errors thrown by someFn ought to contribute to the calling function’s ErrType.

I’ll use this syntax in the examples below for brevity, but it ultimately doesn’t add new capabilities and could be omitted; from the perspective of ErrType inference, it’s simply sugar for try { someFn() } catch(e) { throw e as XXX; }.[^3]

The example below, adapted from the TS homepage, demonstrates these rules:

export function updateUser(id: number, update: Partial<User>) {
  const user = getUser(id)
  const newUser = { ...user, ...update }
  saveUser(id, newUser)
}

function saveUser(id: string, value: User) {    
  localStorage.setItem(`lastmodified.${id}`, new Date().toISOString());
  localStorage.setItem(id, JSON.stringify(value));
}

function getUser(id: string) {
  const user = localStorage.getItem(id);
  return user ? JSON.parse(user) as User : undefined;
}

In terms of ErrType inference:

1. The TypeError that JSON.stringify can throw, and the SyntaxError that JSON.parse can throw, are not reflected in the ErrType of saveUser and getUser, respectively; the author assumes, fairly reasonably, that these calls will not throw in context, and TS takes their word for it. Accordingly, TS doesn’t clutter up the ErrType with those unlikely errors, which, in the general case, would be unsafe to handle anyway if they did occur.
2. For the same reasons, saveUser’s ErrType doesn’t include the QuotaExceededError error that setItem can throw.

The author’s assumption that setItem won’t throw a QuotaExceededError is less justified, though, and the possibility of this exception a reveals a potential bug: in saveUser, storing the last modified date could succeed, but then storing the corresponding data could fail, if storing the date filled up website’s storage quota.

Hopefully, from day one, this proposal would make such a bug less likely, as the built-in declaration for setItem would look something like this:

setItem(key: string, value: string): void throws DOMException<"QuotaExceededError">

An author, seeing that in their IDE popup (and/or possibly aided by some lint rules), might be sufficiently reminded of this failure possibility to rewrite their code to avoid it.

If the code were rewritten like:

export function updateUser(id: number, update: Partial<User>) {
  const user = getUser(id)
  const newUser = { ...user, ...update }
  saveUser(id, newUser) throws UserSaveFailedError
}

function saveUser(id: string, user: User) {    
  try {
    const val = JSON.stringify({ date: new Date(), user });
    localStorage[id] = val;
  } catch(e) {
    // e: UnknownError | TypeError | DOMException<"QuotaExceededError">
    // TypeError comes from JSON.stringify, while the 
    // DOMException shows that ErrTypes apply to setters too
    throw new UserSaveFailedError(id, { cause: e });
  }
}

// ...

Then, ErrType inference would include the explicitly-thrown UserSaveFailedError in saveUser’s ErrType. It would also be included in updateUser’s ErrType, thanks to the use of throws UserSaveFailedError. But, as before, the potential error from JSON.stringify would not be explicitly part of the ErrType.

These inference rules could certainly be made more complicated, which would allow them to do the "right thing" more often on existing, real-world code, at the cost of the rules becoming harder to explain and learn. I think that's likely to be a bad tradeoff, but I'd want to see the results of these rules on much more real world code before saying that confidently.

Annotating a function’s ErrType

In this proposal, a function's ErrType is always inferred when its implementation is present; it is not legal to annotate the ErrType of a function in these cases. E.g., the following would not be allowed:

// both are illegal ErrType annotations
function x(): void throws XXX { /* body here */ }
const x = (): void throws XXX => { /* body here */ }

Removing the ability to explicitly annotate a function implementation’s ErrType removes the large maintenance burden that would be required to keep manually-authored throws annotations up-to-date or as complete as what would've been inferred. That drudgery is part of why checked exceptions have failed in other contexts (the inferred error lists can get quite long) so it’s important to avoid it.

Admittedly, this restriction is inconsistent with the rest of TS (where an explicit type annotation can throw away precision relative to what was inferred). However, the fact that any inferred ErrType would be assignable to any explicitly-written ErrType (by the logic of UnknownError) means it’d be easier for these manually-written annotations to silently come out of sync than it would be for other annotations. Moreover, if manually-annotated ErrTypes are prohibited from the beginning, that could always be relaxed later if it proves annoying or counterintuitive; but, of course, the reverse is not true.

Additionally, if there are (rare) cases where it’s deemed critical to see a function’s ErrType directly in a TS source file’s text (i.e., without needing an IDE), a number of escape hatches would be available, based on the rules I propose below for where throws annotations would be allowed. E.g., one could write

const x: () => void throws XXX = function() { /* ... */ }

This would be annotating the type of the x variable, not the function expression. The logic of UnknownError dictates that this assignment should always succeed — although, a la excess property checks, heuristics could be added here to flag this assignment if XXX looks off; see details below.

Type Definition/Declaration Syntax

Declaration files and declare statements obviously need a way to record a function's ErrType, to carry this information across package boundaries.

It seems sensible that the same syntax should be usable in every other context where a type definition is allowed. Therefore, if declare const foo: () => void throws TypeError is valid, I'd expect type Foo = () => void throws TypeError to be valid too.

Because every ErrType always includes UnknownError, a function that annotates a parameter as type Foo above (rather than just () => void) is indicating that it might give special meaning to TypeError errors and be prepared for them to be thrown; it's not indicating that the function it accepts can only throw TypeError.

Similarly, an interface that includes a property of type Foo is advising implementers of the interface to throw a specific error, and consumers of the interface to handle it. But, again, a function doesn’t have to throw this error (or only this error) to satisfy the interface.

Implicit in all the syntax examples given so far is that TS would never emit UnknownError in a throws annotation (or show it in an IDE popup), as it’s implicitly present for every function. If a user manually writes UnknownError in a declaration, it has no effect.

If a function’s ErrType is only UnknownError, then, the function's type would canonically be written exactly as it appears today — i.e., () => void is simply shorthand for () => void throws UnknownError. This preserves backwards compatibility.

Parametric ErrTypes

Any proposal for typed errors is gonna face the demand for those types to be generic/parametric. User-land versions of map, for example, or the example foo function shown above, propagate errors thrown by their callback. Accordingly, this proposal envisions that normal type parameters can be used in a throws clause.

Here’s the original foo example annotated with a type parameter for the callback’s ErrType:

// NB: the type annotation on `justThrow` above was removed, so its inferred type
// is now `() => void throws TypeError`, as opposed to `() => void`.
const justThrow = () => {
  throw new TypeError("don't call me yet");
}

function foo<E>(callback: () => void throws E) {
  try {
    callback();
    doSomething();
    doSomethingElse("blah blah");
  } catch (e) {
    // e: UnknownError | E | RangeError | SyntaxError
    if(e instanceof RangeError) {
      return 0;
    }
    throw e;
  }
}

foo(justThrow);

Hovering over foo(justThrow); would now show a concrete instantiation of foo's type, like foo(callback: () => void throws TypeError): void throws TypeError | SyntaxError.

The inferred ErrType of foo would be: UnknownError | Exclude<E, RangeError> | SyntaxError.

The rules for this inference are roughly:

1. When any type parameter is inferred, it would be inferred with UnknownError excluded from the source types used to infer it. Therefore, the fact that justThrow’s ErrType includes UnknownError doesn’t automatically add UnknownError into the inferred type for E. (This would become relevant if E were also used as an argument’s type.) Instead, UnknownError is removed from the types used to infer E, then E is inferred as normal, and then UnknownError is automatically added back into every ErrType at the end of the process.

2. The Exclude<E, RangeError> is automatically generated by CFA, which observes the types of errors that are not re-thrown.

The interaction between generics and the logic of UnknownError can lead to some weird results. For example:

const x: <T>(it: T) => T throws T = function<T>(it: T) {
  throw new RangeError();
}

This assignment is allowed because the inferred ErrType of the function expression would be UnknownError | RangeError, while the ErrType of x is UnknownError | T, and the logic of UnknownError makes these assignable regardless of T’s type. This is slightly weird, in that the error thrown by the function actually has no relation to its argument, but I don’t think it’s a dealbreaker.

Async Error Handling

This proposal is easy to generalize to async error handling: in the same way that a function type has an associated ErrType, a Promise would have an associated ErrType representing the errors it could reject with. As with functions, this type would always implicitly include UnknownError, such that the ErrType of a Promise does not effect its assignability to other Promise types.

When inferring the ErrType of the Promise returned from an async function, the same rules would apply as for synchronous functions, with the additional rule that the ErrType of any returned Promise would be included in the function’s ErrType.

The syntax for where/how to write the Promise's ErrType could be bikeshed extensively. But the discussion above of ErrType type parameters gestures at one way this could look: the Promise type could have a second type parameter that holds its ErrType (excluding UnknownError).

In that case, a version of foo with an identical body, but just marked async, would be declared as:

declare foo<E>(callback: () => void throws E): 
    Promise<void, Exclude<E, RangeError> | SyntaxError>

Similarly, Promise.prototype.then would be declared as:

interface Promise<T, E> {
  /* ... some overloads omitted ... */
  then<TResult1 = T, TResult2 = never, E1, E2>(
    onfulfilled: (value: T) => TResult1 | PromiseLike<TResult1, E1> throws E1,
    onrejected: (reason: E) => TResult2 | PromiseLike<TResult2, E2> throws E2
  ): Promise<TResult1 | TResult2, E1 | E2>
}

In that declaration, the onfulfilled and onrejected callbacks use E1/E2 both in the ErrType of the PromiseLike and in a throws clause, since the callbacks can return a rejected promise or throw synchronously. Also, note that the reason parameter of onrejected is now typed (soundly, thanks to the inclusion of UnknownError).

However, any type parameter that occurs as the second type parameter in a Promise/PromiseLike would need to be treated in a special way, namely:

• UnknownError would need to always be implicitly added to its final type;
• for symmetry with the prohibition against writing a throws annotation for a function’s body, users mentioning Promise in a function’s return type annotation would have to leave this parameter out;
• the value for the parameter would then have to be inferred using the ErrType inference rules, rather than the rules for normal type parameter inference.

This special casing could be hardcoded in the compiler or — especially if there are user-land versions of PromiseLike that would need to work as well — it might instead be worth introducing some new keyword like rejectswith, as in:

declare foo<E>(callback: () => void throws E): 
    Promise<void> rejectswith Exclude<E, RangeError> | SyntaxError

Alternatively, these special type parameters could have a special marking, which, for consistency, could also be required on type parameters that are used in a throws clause. For example, perhaps these parameters would need to be prefixed with error, as in:

interface Promise<T, error E> { /* ... */ }

// error is needed on the declaration of E because E is used in a `throws`
// and in the error-marked parameter of the Promise type
declare foo<error E>(callback: () => void throws E): 
    Promise<void, Exclude<E, RangeError> | SyntaxError>

Exhaustiveness Checking

In languages with a Result type, it can be useful for the compiler to be able to check that the consumer of a result has handled all possible errors (enumerated in the Result’s error type parameter). In this proposal, that would equate to the compiler checking that all the non-UnknownError portions of an ErrType were handled (or re-thrown).

However, the obvious problem with exhaustiveness checking is that it turns the addition of a new error type into a breaking change, which would probably not be a good thing, especially at first: every improvement to a legacy declaration file (to add missing errors) would lead to exhaustiveness checking errors in consumers of the declarations. While that would force the consumer to ask: “should I do something with this error type I'm newly-aware of?”, it would also make library minor version (or @types package) upgrades more involved/time-consuming.

Therefore, I doubt that exhaustiveness checking should ever be on globally or by default.

However, with this proposal, there could be a way for users to opt-in to exhaustiveness checking within individual catch blocks, consistent with TS's existing exhaustiveness checking idioms. One approach might be:

declare function doX(): void throws InvalidUrlError | InvalidResponseTypeError

try {
  doX()
} catch(e) {
  if(e instanceof InvalidUrlError) { ... }
  if(e instanceof InvalidResponseTypeError) { ... }

  // opt-in to exhaustiveness checking by removing `UnknownError`
  // and having TS validate that what's left over is `never`.
  throw (e as ExcludeUnknownError<typeof e> satisfies never)
}

Note that ExcludeUnknownError would be a new, built-in type that just removes UnknownError from a type. This is needed because Exclude<T, UnknownError> would result in never for any type T, which isn't what the user intends. (That would happen for the same reasons that Exclude<T, unknown> always results in never: UnknownError is a top type.)

This is a somewhat clunky way to get exhaustiveness checking that requires some advanced understanding, but that may not be a bad thing if the idea is for people to use this feature only rarely, where they're sure they really want it, in critical parts of a codebase that is especially error conscious.

Details of UnknownError and changes to function types

• UnknownError | unknown should probably reduce to UnknownError.

• When applying a type assertion to a type that contains UnknownError, it might be useful to remove UnknownError from the types on both the LHS and RHS of the type assertion before applying TS’s usual “do the types overlap” check to decide whether the cast is allowed. Because the someFn() throws SomeError syntax would be equivalent to try { someFn() } catch(e) { throw e as SomeError; }, this rule would mostly serve to sanity check that SomeError is related to someFn’s ErrType.

  I think this rule would likely be helpful, even though it risks a bit of breakage as declaration files are updated. As with the overlap check on casts today, it could be circumvented by casting to unknown first.

• I haven’t fully thought about how functions having an ErrType would effect type inference and contextual typing. Some examples:

  const x = (() => {
    throw new RangeError();
  }) satisfies () => void
  
  const x2 = (() => {
    throw new RangeError();
  }) satisfies () => void throws SyntaxError
  
  declare function id<T extends () => void throws SyntaxError>(it: T): T;
  
  const x3 = id(() => {});
  const x4 = id<() => void throws RangeError>(() => { 
    throw new Error(); 
  })
  
  declare function id2<T extends () => void throws SyntaxError>(
    v: { x5: T }
  ): { x5: T };
  
  const { x5 = () => { throw new TypeError(); } } = id2({ 
    x5() { throw new RangeError() } 
  });
  
  // Here, the non-UnknownError portion of the ErrType in T's
  // constraint is a super-type of TypeError + RangeError below.
  declare function id3<T extends () => void throws Error>(
    v: { x6: T }
  ): { x6: T };
  
  const { x7 = () => { throw new TypeError(); } } = id3({ 
    x7() { throw new RangeError() } 
  });
  
  declare function id4<T>(
    it: (x: T) => void throws T
  ): (x: T) => void throws T
  
  // Does `x8` now require a `TypeError` as its first argument?
  const x8 = id4(() => { throw new TypeError(); })
  

  I’m somewhat confident that the ErrType of x should be RangeError, as writing x that way would presumably be an alternative to const x: () => void = () => { /* ... */ }, which would throw away the inferred ErrType of the RHS (because the ErrType of () => void, as shorthand for () => void throws UnknownError, is simply UnknownError).

  Beyond that, I don’t know what the right answers are here, both because I don’t understand TypeScript well enough — including to know what would be easiest to implement — and because figuring out the desired behavior would probably require looking at a lot of real-world code.

TL;DR

• JS/TS code does, and will continue to, throw lots of exceptions, including ones that can be usefully caught and recovered from in code that wants to be resilient.

• TS can help developers better identify these errors, esp. the "something went wrong" sort, without introducing unsoundness and without the whole ecosystem needing to document every exception first.

• TS, through its type inference abilities and its market share, is in a unique position to make exception types better documented, in an automated way, and make this information available to developers in IDE.

• Robust, automatic tracking of thrown exception types might create a new "best option" for application-level error handling. It would allow normal, thrown exceptions to have many of the benefits of Result, without devs having to take on the Result's many downsides (i.e., callback hell, extra error tracks, and needing to adapt all third-party code into Result-returning code).

Footnotes

[^1]: This proposal assumes that a function's potential exceptions are not known exhaustively, so it includes UnknownError in every function's ErrType. However, some commenters in #13219 wanted to be able to assert that a function would only throw particular exceptions (often, in order to require that a function passed as an argument would throw no exceptions). I think the use cases for this, and the circumstances in which a function author can actually know the full set of the function's exceptions, are somewhat limited. However, if there are compelling use cases for this down the road, additional syntax could be added to create function types whose ErrType does not automatically include UnknownError. These new function types would be assignable to all previously-existing function types (which would include UnknownError), and in that sense be backwards compatible.

[^2]: Today, almost all the built-in Error types have structurally-identical definitions. For this proposal to be useful for standard library functions, common errors like TypeError and SyntaxError would have to be made structurally distinct, possibly through the addition of some brand symbol. All the examples in this post assume that these errors have been given distinct TS types.

[^3]: This syntax could presumably be used on getters too (i.e. obj.someProp throws XXX), but setters would have to use the longer, unsugared version.

🔍 Search Terms

error types, typed catch, error documentation

Lies zuerst den Vorschlag und das darin verlinkte TypeScript-Issue #13219 und gleiche anschließend das darin beschriebene Typisierungsmodell für Fehler mit dem bestehenden Typensystem und Kontrollflussdesign des Compilers ab. Als abgeschlossen gilt die Aufgabe, wenn eine klare Maintainer-Entscheidung zum Vorschlag vorliegt und, falls er angenommen wird, ein Implementierungsplan erstellt wurde, der die betroffenen Compiler-Bereiche und Tests identifiziert.