microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
`// @ts-mutate` decorator/directive
Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.
- Langage dominant
- Go
- Ătoiles
- 111k
- Forks
- 14.3k
- Merge moyen
- 2 j 4 h
- PR mergées (30 j)
- 132
Description
đ Search Terms
mutate type, alter type, post-declaration narrow
â 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
â Suggestion
When doing property assignment to a variable already typed, allow a // @ts-mutate above the assignment which will
- A) Not throw an error trying to assign to a non-existent property
- B) Further narrow the type, encompassing the change
Example:
interface ObjectType {
bar: string
}
const foo: ObjectType = { bar: 'hello' }
// @ts-mutate
foo.baz = 'hello'
foo
// ^? -- this is now `ObjectType & { baz: string }`
đ Motivating Example
One specific example of why this would be useful would be a query constructor for type inference. There are GraphQL query constructors out there (GenQL) that query by supplying an object. I've built functions that yield reusable queries but sometimes I want to extend them.
This would allow me to take an existing query object and add an additional field to query, keeping my strict type inference.
đ» Use Cases
- What do you want to use this for?
This could be used for constructing large objects sequentially and with inference without having to basically duplicate the information
- What shortcomings exist with current approaches?
If you have an existing variable, you have to alter its type declaration with the type that it is (explicitly) and intersect it with your changes. This also doesn't necessarily narrow correctly. There's no exisiting clean, easy way to do this that works off of type inference and narrowing
- What workarounds are you using in the meantime?
// UGLY const query: ReturnType<typeof queryProp> & { prop: { addition?: true } } = queryProp(...args) query.prop.addition = true
Guide de contribution
Ouvrir le guide de contribution
Par oĂč commencer
- Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
- Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez â cela Ă©vite que deux personnes fassent le mĂȘme travail.
- Forkez le dépÎt et travaillez sur une branche.
- Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.
Piste de recherche
Lâissue nâidentifie pas les fichiers dâimplĂ©mentation, les tests ni les points dâentrĂ©e. Commencez par examiner le comportement proposĂ© de @ts-mutate et son interaction avec la vĂ©rification des affectations et le rĂ©trĂ©cissement des types ; le travail nâest terminĂ© que lorsque la conception est acceptĂ©e et que le comportement dâinfĂ©rence demandĂ© est couvert par des tests.
Rédigé par le modÚle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.
Ăvaluation
- Stack technique
- typescript
- Domaine
- compilers
- Type d'issue
- Fonctionnalité
- Difficulté
- 5/5
- Temps estimé
- Plus d'une semaine
- Activité
- Ă l'abandon
- Clarté
- Ă clarifier
- Accessibilité débutants
- 25/100