Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Type subscope for local type aliases #41470

Open
5 tasks done
tjjfvi opened this issue Nov 10, 2020 · 3 comments
Open
5 tasks done

Type subscope for local type aliases #41470

tjjfvi opened this issue Nov 10, 2020 · 3 comments
Labels
Awaiting More Feedback This means we'd like to hear from more people who would be helped by this feature Suggestion An idea for TypeScript

Comments

@tjjfvi
Copy link
Contributor

tjjfvi commented Nov 10, 2020

Search Terms

type scope, type iife

Suggestion

A syntax that allows for a type subscope (like a js IIFE).

Use Cases

When constructing complex types, they are often not very readable without breaking them up into multiple type aliases. However, this means that you have to pass the type aliases through, along with their constraints, and it can become even less readable.

Examples

Basic examples of the concept / suggested syntax

// All of the below are equivalent to { p: { q: T } }

type X0<T> = {{
  type A = { q: T };
  type B = { p: A };
  type = B;
}}; 

type X1<T> = {{
  type = B;
  type A = { q: T };
  type B = { p: A };
}}; 

type X2<T> = {{
  type Q<U> = { q: U };
  type A = Q<T>;
  type B = { p: A };
  type = B;
}}; 

type X3<T> = {
  p: {{
    type A = { q: T };
    type = A;
  }};
};

type X4<T> = {{
  type = { p: { q: T } };
}};

Example of applying this to a real-world type

Consider the traditional approach in the following type:

// Bluebird-esque promisifyAll (monolithic):

type PromisifyAll<T> = {
  [K in keyof T & string as `${T}Async`]: (
    T[K] extends (...args: infer A) => void
      ? A extends [...infer B, (error: any, result?: infer R) => void]
        ? (...args: B) => Promise<R>
        : never
      : never
  )
}

This isn't very readable; it might help to extract some of it to type aliases:

// Bluebird-esque promisifyAll (refactored to type aliases):

type OrigArgs<Value> = Value extends (...args: infer A) => void ? A : never;
type SplitArgs<OrigArgs extends any[]> =
  OrigArgs extends [...infer A, (error: any, result?: infer R) => void]
    ? { args: A, result: R }
    : never;
type Func<SplitArgs extends { args: any[], result: any }> = (...args: SplitArgs["args"]) => Promise<SplitArgs["result"]>;
type PromisifyAll<T> = {
  [K in keyof T & string as `${T}Async`]: Func<SplitArgs<OrigArgs<T[K]>>>
}

That doesn't look great, pollutes the type scope, and has a bit of extends boilerplate.

With this proposal, you could write:

// Bluebird-esque promisifyAll (refactored to use type subscope):

type PromisifyAll<T> = {
  [K in keyof T & string as `${T}Async`]: {{
    type Value = T[K];
    type OrigArgs = Value extends (...args: infer A) => void ? A : never;
    type SplitArgs =
      OrigArgs extends [...infer A, (error: any, result?: infer R) => void]
        ? { args: A, result: R }
        : never;
    type Func = (...args: SplitArgs["args"]) => Promise<SplitArgs["result"]>;
    type = Func;
  }}
}

Or, a terser variant:

// Bluebird-esque promisifyAll (refactored to use type subscope, terser):

type PromisifyAll<T> = {
  [K in keyof T & string as `${T}Async`]: {{
    type OrigArgs = T[K] extends (...args: infer A) => void ? A : never;
    type SplitArgs =
      OrigArgs extends [...infer A, (error: any, result?: infer R) => void]
        ? { args: A, result: R }
        : never;
    type = (...args: SplitArgs["args"]) => Promise<SplitArgs["result"]>;
  }}
}

While we're all used to nested conditional types, if you saw the equivalent of the original type definition in runtime code, you would likely agree that it should be refactored.

Checklist

My suggestion meets these guidelines:

  • 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, etc.)
  • This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.
@MartinJohns
Copy link
Contributor

In the meantime you can make use of the long forgotten art of adding comments. :-)

@tjjfvi
Copy link
Contributor Author

tjjfvi commented Nov 10, 2020

Here are my quick thoughts on why comments aren't sufficient:

  • They require additional work to write, verify, and maintain.
  • They can't improve the actual readability of the code.
  • Intermediate type aliases with scope allow the types to be DRY.

@DanielRosenwasser
Copy link
Member

Seems similar to #23188, though it seems like here you have an anonymous namespace with a single exported type.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Awaiting More Feedback This means we'd like to hear from more people who would be helped by this feature Suggestion An idea for TypeScript
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants