Multiple, type, condition, expression, no, extra, case, and, or
I often find myself repeating sub-branches of conditional types, which makes reasoning about control flow more difficult. I'd recommend the same logical operators to those of JS land, at the type-level.
Let's say we have three boolean types––ConditionA, ConditionB and ConditionC––and we want to gather the number of true conditions in a new type Result, which will evaluate to 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 depending on the aforementioned conditions. The runtime equivalent can be expressed quite legibly:
const Result =
(conditionA && conditionB && conditionC)
? 3
: (
(conditionA && conditionB) ||
(conditionB && conditionC) ||
(conditionA && conditionC)
)
? 2
: (conditionA || conditionB || conditionC)
? 1
: 0;
The type-level equivalent is not as obvious in its meaning, and we end up repeating the potential results.
type Result =
ConditionA extends true
? ConditionB extends true
? ConditionC extends true
? 3
: 2
: ConditionC extends true
? 2
: 1
: ConditionB extends true
? ConditionC extends true
? 2
: 1
: ConditionC extends true
? 1
: 0;
While it nets more code, the following is––imo––easier to understand.
type Result =
(ConditionA extends true && ConditionB extends true && ConditionC extends true)
? 3
: (
(ConditionA extends true && ConditionB extends true) ||
(ConditionB extends true && ConditionC extends true) ||
(ConditionA extends true && ConditionC extends true)
)
? 2
: (ConditionA extends true || ConditionB extends true || ConditionC extends true)
? 1
: 0;
Ideally, the same rules from JS-land could apply to judging whether a type is a subtype of truthy, so we could do this:
type Result =
(ConditionA && ConditionB && ConditionC)
? 3
: (
(ConditionA && ConditionB) ||
(ConditionB && ConditionC) ||
(ConditionA && ConditionC)
)
? 2
: (ConditionA || ConditionB || ConditionC)
? 1
: 0;
My suggestion meets these guidelines:
+1
Additionally, I think it should allow the below, for parity with intersection / union and also cleaner multiline conditionals
type Result =
(ConditionA && ConditionB && ConditionC)
? 3
: (
|| (ConditionA && ConditionB)
|| (ConditionB && ConditionC)
|| (ConditionA && ConditionC)
)
? 2
: (ConditionA || ConditionB || ConditionC)
? 1
: 0;
I really like this for when I have long chains of A ? B ? C ? T : never : never : never; (A && B && C) ? T : never seems a lot cleaner.
I don't particularly care for requiring parens, but if it's necessary for avoiding ambiguity, it's still better than what we have right now.
Also, for conditions consisting solely of &&s, infer Ts should be allowed, and be processed left to right, i.e.:
type T = (X extends [infer X0, infer X1] && Y extends [X0, infer Y1]) ? [X0, [X1, Y1]] : never
Should be valid.
@tjjfvi absolutely! Great idea.
Most helpful comment
Also, for conditions consisting solely of
&&s,infer Ts should be allowed, and be processed left to right, i.e.:Should be valid.