microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript
Type instantiation for type level generic function
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
type instantiation
type level generic function
generic return type
Related: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/40542, https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/61133 and maybe https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/52035?
Edit: Just found https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/55435 and https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/40179
### ✅ 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
#47607 added support for instantiation expressions, but those do not apply at the type level. I understand it'd be ambiguous in some cases (https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/pull/47607#issuecomment-1058192563), but in some cases there really isn't a reasonable workaround.
### 📃 Motivating Example
I actually have a very similar case to the example provided in https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/issues/40542
```ts
const provideBox = () => {
const box = (value: T) => ({value});
return box;
};
type BoxMaker = ReturnType
// type BoxMaker = (value: T) => { value: T; }
type Box1 = ReturnType>;
// Type 'BoxMaker' is not generic.(2315)
const box = undefined as unknown as BoxMaker;
type Box2 = ReturnType>;
//type Box2 = { value: T; }
```
Compiler Options
```json
{
"compilerOptions": {
"strict": true,
"noImplicitAny": true,
"strictNullChecks": true,
"strictFunctionTypes": true,
"strictPropertyInitialization": true,
"strictBindCallApply": true,
"noImplicitThis": true,
"noImplicitReturns": true,
"alwaysStrict": true,
"esModuleInterop": true,
"declaration": true,
"target": "ES2017",
"module": "ESNext",
"moduleResolution": "node"
}
}
```
**Playground Link:** [Provided](https://www.typescriptlang.org/play/?jsx=0#code/MYewdgzgLgBADgJxANwJYBMCmAhEAPGAXhgAoBKIgPhgG8AoGRmUSWAI3yJgB4AVSksgCGAGwCumAFwxeFQtRI1h4zAF8yAbgZMEmKGIRgYHPFtVa6UAJ5xMMXHgCyQgNaYEXAEp6DYXjcxua1sQADN4JDQsB0o6AHo4mGC7B2c3D2I+AWUJaVkqWhgcqRkNGFU6SwD7fABGLK8fQ39bblTXdyzKLQSZaoBydvT+mFQIGDAQWABzTDB3VGAAOhIAJgBmWoBWMkqWaGNOYjEwLFDUefQYIXGTl0mAdyMbmqcOhAtk19WG4m99ZoBIIBMKHPBdHpxL4OH78Lg0IqiXKlcqVIA)
### 💻 Use Cases
1. What do you want to use this for?
In our case we have a more complex `provideBox` that accept arguments. We also need to rely on type inference for the generic type of the `box` function and its return value;
3. What shortcomings exist with current approaches?
I cannot extract and export a generic type for a return value of a generic function if I don't have direct reference to the function.
5. What workarounds are you using in the meantime?
The only workaround I found is to use a dummy runtime value to apply the type, and use and instantiation expression on that dummy value (see `Box2` 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
首先复现所提供 Playground 链接中的动机示例,然后阅读相关 issue 和 PR #47607,以了解现有的实例化表达式行为以及指出的歧义。完成的标准是:类型级形式可以在不使用虚拟运行时值的情况下提取泛型返回类型,生成预期的 Box2 结果,同时保持现有行为不变。
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
- 35/100