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

未关闭
#7,782 4 条评论 1 个 reaction 已指派 0 人 在 GitHub 查看

还没有人认领这个 Issue。

评估

难度
5/5
预计耗时
一周以上
新手友好度
25/100
Issue 类型
功能
描述清晰度
基本清楚
活跃度
停滞
技术栈
typescript
领域
compilers

调研方向

未指定文件、测试或编译器入口点。首先查看 GenericClass 和 Map 示例,然后跟踪如何根据接收表达式推断构造函数类型参数。只有明确处理上下文默认值、间接调用、派生类和构造函数语义后,才算完成。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。

描述

Effort: Difficult Help Wanted Suggestion

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?
主要语言
Go
星标
111k
派生
14.4k
平均合并
1 天 15 小时
30 天内合并 PR
106

贡献指南

打开贡献指南

从这里开始

  1. 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
  2. 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
  3. Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
  4. 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。

microsoft/TypeScript 的其他 Issue

查看 microsoft/TypeScript 的全部 Issue

相似的 Issue

更多 Go Issue

把新 issue 发到你的邮箱

精选适合新手参与的 GitHub issue 摘要。