microsoft / microsoft/TypeScript

Suggestion: use receiver's declared type arguments as defaults to its class constructor

Open
#7,782 4 comments 1 reaction 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Effort: Difficult Help Wanted Suggestion
Dominant language
Go
Stars
111k
Forks
14.3k
Avg merge
2d 4h
Merged PRs (30d)
132

Description

I run into this relatively simple pattern a lot:

class GenericClass<T, U, V> {
    a: T;
    b: U;
    c: V;
}

let x: GenericClass<number, string, boolean>;

x = new GenericClass();
// Which produces the error:
// Error: GenericClass<{}, {}, {}> is not assignable to GenericClass<number, string, boolean>

Since x has already been defined with a particular set of type arguments, these arguments could be implicitly assumed as defaults to its type's constructor when invoked with it being the receiver (for simplicity I'm assuming here it is the exact constructor as declared e.g. not a derived class).

I understand there will be cases where that would be very difficult or even impossible to achieve:

let createInstance = () => new GenericClass()
x = createInstance();

but these are relatively rare. Most of the time it's just:

class Example {
    myMap: Map<string, Array<{n: number}>>;

    constructor() {
        this.myMap = new Map<string, Array<{n: number}>>(); // <-- Why repeat?
    }
}

Which instead could have been:

class Example {
    myMap: Map<string, Array<{n: number}>>;

    constructor() {
        this.myMap = new Map(); // <-- Better.. :)
    }
}
  • Any possible issues with this? perhaps ones that I'm not aware of or haven't thought of?
  • Potential name collisions? (though I'm not aware of any?)
  • Maybe just a bit too difficult to implement? perhaps revisit later? (though #5256 appears more difficult than this and seems to be in consideration?)
  • Or maybe this 'bends' the semantics of the constructor expression (new Class<T>()), or at least its default type arguments, in a way that's slightly unappealing from a "purist" point of view"? (though this doesn't seem like a "purist" language?). Perhaps some concept of "contextual baseline default type arguments" can be included as an integral part of the future proposal for default type arguments?

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

No files, tests, or compiler entry points are named. Start by reviewing the GenericClass and Map examples, then trace how constructor type arguments are inferred from the receiving expression. Done requires a settled treatment of contextual defaults, indirect calls, derived classes, and constructor semantics.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Tech stack
typescript
Domain
compilers
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Mostly clear
Newbie friendliness
25/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.