-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
Increase selectivity of subtype relationship for signatures #35659
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
b457de4
Increase selectivity of subtype relationship for signatures
ahejlsberg 5524a61
Add regression test
ahejlsberg 6d67054
Accept new baselines
ahejlsberg 47f26e6
Use strictSubtypeRelation for union subtype reduction
ahejlsberg 42c0451
(x: number | undefined) -> void is subtype of (x?: number | undefined…
ahejlsberg e60d7ff
Accept new baselines
ahejlsberg 7df76b6
Merge branch 'master' into fix35414-2
ahejlsberg baac083
Add tests
ahejlsberg e0e45ec
Accept new baselines
ahejlsberg 8228888
Address CR feedback
ahejlsberg 273bb3e
Fix parameter list length check
ahejlsberg 4154dcb
Accept API baseline changes
ahejlsberg File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the
isTypeIdenticalTo
check here for?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Without it a signature like
(x?: string | undefined) => void
wouldn't be a subtype of(x: string) => void
. We want it to be such that we reduce a union to just(x: string) => void
. It's basically a tiebreaker for positions with identical types but one with and one without the?
modifier.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
...Mmm, but
isTypeIdenticalTo
doesn't seem quite right...? Shouldn't it becompareTypes(sourceType, targetType, /*reportErrors*/ false)
? The difference, I think, should really only be visible, but from what I gather is important when callbacks with optional parameters are the parameter type of callbacks with optional parameters, eg(x?: (x?: string | undefined) => void) => void
and(x: (x: string | undefined) => void) => void
The first should be a subtype of the second because the second's parameter is a subtype of the first's.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, probably better to use
compareTypes
.