microsoft / TypeScript

TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
https://www.typescriptlang.org
Apache License 2.0
101.08k stars 12.49k forks source link

Suggestion: Reopen static and instance side of classes #2957

Open rbuckton opened 9 years ago

rbuckton commented 9 years ago

Summary

To support both the semantics of subclassing built-ins in ES6 and still allow authors to augment built-ins, we need a mechanism to reopen the static and instance sides of a class.

Current state

Today we can re-open interfaces, allowing authors to augment built-ins (for example, to support polyfills):

// in lib.d.ts
interface Array<T> { /*...*/ }
interface ArrayConstructor { /*...*/ }
declare var Array: ArrayConstructor;

// in polyfill.ts
interface Array<T> {
  includes(value: T): Boolean;
}
interface ArrayConstructor {
  of<T>(...items: T[]): Array<T>;
}

Array.prototype.includes = function (value: any) { return this.indexOf(value) != -1; }
Array.of = function<T> (...items: T[]) { return items; }

We can also re-open the static side of a class, in a limited fashion:

// initial declaration
class MyClass {
}

// re-open
module MyClass {
  export var staticProperty = 1;
}

There are several issues with these approaches:

I propose we add a new syntactic modifier for the class declaration that would indicate we are re-opening an existing class. For this example I am using the keyword partial, although the semantics here differ significantly than the same-named capability in C#:

// in lib.d.ts
declare class Array<T> {
}

// in polyfill.ts
partial class Array<T> {
  static of<T>(...items: T[]) { return items; }
  includes(value: T): boolean { return this.indexOf(value) != -1; }
}

// emit (ES5)
Array.of = function() { 
  var items = [];
  for (var _i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) 
    items[i] = arguments[i];
  return items;
}
Array.prototype.includes = function(value) {
  return this.indexOf(value) != -1;
}

Rules

This has also been discussed previously:

danquirk commented 9 years ago

Note comments in #563

RyanCavanaugh commented 9 years ago

Also worth linking #9 since it covers basically the same use cases

kode4food commented 9 years ago

yes, please!

RyanCavanaugh commented 8 years ago

Need to write up the status of this one

MortenHoustonLudvigsen commented 8 years ago

I like this suggestion, but would like to see it extended slightly.

Say I have a class generated from a C# class. I would like to be able to apply decorators to properties of the class without having to change the generated code.

I could see this working, if I am allowed to add an existing property to the partial class with the same type or a more general compatible type (so any would work in all cases). The property would not change type.

Example:

// in Person.ts (a generated file from somewhere)
export class Person {
    @key
    id: number;
    name: string;
}

// in PersonExtensions.ts
import { Person } from './Person';

partial class Person {
    @required
    name: any;
}
manast commented 8 years ago

+1

qwertie commented 6 years ago

In JS you do this by extending the prototype. While a friendlier syntax would be welcome, supporting the traditional style would be great for those who need it. TS is rumored to be a superset of JS after all 🙂

// [ts] Property 'foo' does not exist on type 'Klass'.
Klass.prototype.foo = function() { console.log("foo!"); }
new Klass().foo();
trusktr commented 6 years ago

I would like this, because for example, if a 3rd-party type definition is not accurate, I would like to augment the class in order to quickly fix it for my case.

In my case, the constructor of a class is stated to receive an argument of one type, but in reality it can accept an argument of a union of two types, and I'd like to simply fix this without having to fork a library or rewrite the entire definition of the class.

JohnArcher commented 5 years ago

Is there any progression on this topic? I have the same problem as @trusktr .

saschanaz commented 3 years ago

Random bikeshed as the original partial class proposal violates the design goal:

declare class Foo {};
interface class Foo {
  staticMethod(): boolean;
};

let result = Foo.staticMethod(); // boolean
saschanaz commented 3 years ago

Actually this already works:

declare class Foo {
    static abc(): void ;
}

declare namespace Foo {
    export function bcd(): void;
}

Foo.abc();
Foo.bcd();

So maybe this should just be closed.

jcalz commented 3 years ago

I think this issue is also tracking adding new overloads to the construct signature, which can't be done with namespace... (although proposal in the suggestion OP does not seem to allow that either). So this should probably stay open.

Jamesernator commented 9 months ago

This idea would also be useful for extending builtins with private fields (to emulate internal slots) to prevent structural typing in builtins. e.g.:

declare partial class ArrayBuffer {
    #arrayBufferData: unknown;
}

const arrayBufferLike = { 
    byteLength: 200,
    slice: (begin: number, end?: number) => new ArrayBuffer(20),
};
// Would now report an error as this doesn't actually work in practice
const dataView = new DataView(arrayBufferLike);
Jamesernator commented 6 months ago

So another problem today is not all interfaces even have BlahConstructor interfaces to actually extend. For example AbortSignal is defined inline like:

declare var AbortSignal: {
    prototype: AbortSignal;
    new(): AbortSignal;
    /** [MDN Reference](https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API/AbortSignal/abort_static) */
    abort(reason?: any): AbortSignal;
    /** [MDN Reference](https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API/AbortSignal/timeout_static) */
    timeout(milliseconds: number): AbortSignal;
};

which makes it impossible (without patching TypeScript) to add missing static methods in declarations as there is no var merging:

// Subsequent variable declarations must have the same type.  Variable 'AbortSignal' must be of type '{ new (): AbortSignal; prototype: AbortSignal; abort(reason?: any): AbortSignal; timeout(milliseconds: number): AbortSignal; }', but here has type '{ any(signals: readonly AbortSignal[]): AbortSignal; }'.ts(2403)
// lib.dom.d.ts(2337, 13): 'AbortSignal' was also declared here.
declare global {
    var AbortSignal: {
        any(signals: ReadonlyArray<AbortSignal>): AbortSignal;
    };
}

If everything were simply defined as partial class it'd be trivial:

declare global {
    partial class AbortSignal {
        static any(signals: ReadonlyArray<AbortSignal>): AbortSignal;
    }
}
ckohen commented 4 months ago

This was seemingly possible for a while due to what amounted to a "bug" that was patched in TS 5.5. class merging is technically not supported but did work for at least the last 2 years, and did allow you to merge static methods.

With this "bug" patched, it seems like now would be an excellent time to re-evaluate this. I imagine this has gone unlooked at for so long because it simply worked already.

Example use from discord.js: https://github.com/discordjs/discord.js/blob/ba0cb66ff92b0c46b020a2e471501aa4432bc978/packages/discord.js/typings/index.d.ts#L246-L258 Unfortunately, the EventEmitter class doesn't have a separated EventEmitterConstructor like some of the other base classes, so we can't use namespace merging. Luckily for this use case, generics were recently added to EventEmitter in @types/node, but the static methods were still not done. I assume this was just overlooked and we can completely resolve our use case with another PR there. However, I believe this still stands as a great example as to why this is necessary.