microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Pipe Operator instead of conditions and deep extends
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
- 主要语言
- Go
- 星标
- 111k
- 派生
- 14.3k
- 平均合并
- 2 天 4 小时
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 132
描述
### 🔍 Search Terms
- switch case
- switch case type level
- pipe operator ts
- pipe operator typescript
- avoid nested extends
- pipe ts type level
- type level switch
- switch typescript
### ✅ Viability Checklist
- [x] This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
- [x] This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
- [x] This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
- [x] This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
- [x] This isn't a request to add a new utility type: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/No-New-Utility-Types
- [x] This feature would agree with the rest of our Design Goals: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals
### ⭐ Suggestion
My suggestion is to add a kind of idiomatic switch case for typescript types, where we could verify a list of `extends` without nesting.
**ERRATUM:** It does more than just adding syntax sugar to syntax, and behaves differently to a switch case. In this case, it determines a set of conditions that computes and returns the first found matching conditions. This way we could have more complex checking, instead of a simple "If Type T matches other Type U".
The example below does this. It not only checks "equality" and also does more things like calling other utility changes and then doing a condition check.
So, instead of a "switch case", it would likely feel closer to a syntax sugar to a sequence of "ifs".
Imagine a "replace" function that takes a text, find placeholders and provide an object with that placeholders as keys. This is how it can be achieved now:
```typescript
type Whitespace = '\n' | '\t' | ' ';
type TrimLeft =
T extends `${Whitespace}${infer S extends string}` ? TrimLeft : T;
type TrimRight =
T extends `${infer S extends string}${Whitespace}` ? TrimRight : T;
type Trim = TrimRight>;
type Equal = [A] extends [B] ? ([B] extends [A] ? true : false) : false;
type IsJustString = Equal;
type Placeholders =
IsJustString extends true
? string
: Equal extends true
? Result
: T extends `${string}{{${infer P extends string}}}${infer Rest extends string}`
? Placeholders>
: Result;
export function withText(text: T) {
return {
replace: (contents: Record, string>) => {
let result: string = text;
for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(contents)) {
result = result.replace(`{{${key}}}`, value as string);
}
return result;
},
};
}
const helloWorld = withText("{{greeting}}, {{person}}").replace({
greeting: "Hello",
person: "World"
})
```
This is how it would look on my proposal:
```
type Whitespace = '\n' | '\t' | ' ';
type TrimLeft =
|> T extends `${Whitespace}${infer S extends string}`: TrimLeft,
|> T;
type TrimRight =
|> T extends `${infer S extends string}${Whitespace}`: TrimRight,
|> T;
type Trim = TrimRight>;
type Equal = [A] extends [B] ? ([B] extends [A] ? true : false) : false;
type IsJustString = Equal;
type Placeholders =
|> IsJustString extends true: string,
|> Equal extends true: Result,
|> T extends `${string}{{${infer P extends string}}}${infer Rest extends string}`: Placeholders>,
|> Result;
export function withText(text: T) {
return {
replace: (contents: Record, string>) => {
let result: string = text;
for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(contents)) {
result = result.replace(`{{${key}}}`, value as string);
}
return result;
},
};
}
const helloWorld = withText("{{greeting}}, {{person}}").replace({
greeting: "Hello",
person: "World"
})
```
### 📃 Motivating Example
Sometimes nested extends can be too complicated to understand:
- The depth is is unmanageable
- Doesn't separate different concerns (are we still verifying possible values of T or are we doing something else?)
- Makes it hard to format
- Makes it hard to read
### 💻 Use Cases
1. What do you want to use this for?
Replace deep extends checks
2. What shortcomings exist with current approaches?
- Split into different types with different concers
- Format so that it looks like a "switch case"
3. What workarounds are you using in the meantime?
I have presented above
贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
调研方向
该 issue 没有指明 repository 文件、测试或入口点。先检查 TypeScript 当前如何解析和求值条件类型,然后确定所需的语法、类型检查行为、诊断信息和兼容性测试。完成这项工作需要有一份已接受的设计和实现计划,而不只是进行局部修改。
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
评估
- 技术栈
- typescript
- 领域
- compilers
- Issue 类型
- 功能
- 难度
- 5/5
- 预计耗时
- 一周以上
- 活跃度
- 停滞
- 描述清晰度
- 基本清楚
- 新手友好度
- 25/100