Is this the correct behaviour?

functionap<A>(fn:(x:A)=>A,x:A):()=>A{return()=>fn(x);}declarefunctionid<A>(x:A):Aconstw=ap(id,10);// Argument of type '10' is not assignable to parameter of type 'A'. [2345]

I think the logic that floats type parameters out when the return value is a generic function might be too eager. In existing cases where{} would have been inferred it might not be because the application is sufficiently generic, rather inference didn't produce anything sensible but that still type-checked.

I haven't looked into this much, so apologies in advance if I've got something wrong.

@jack-williams The core issue here is the left to right processing of the arguments. Previously we'd get it wrong as well (in that we'd infer{} instead ofnumber), but now what was a loss of type safety instead has become an error. Ideally we ought to first infer from arguments that are not generic functions and then process the generic functions afterwards, similar to what we do for contextually typed arrow functions and function expressions.

@ahejlsberg Ah yes, that makes sense. I agree that it was previously 'wrong', but I disagree that it was a loss of type safety (in this example). The call is perfectly safe, it's just imprecise. Previously this code was fine:

constx=ap(id,10)();if(typeofx==="number"&&x===10){constten:10=x;}

but it will now raise an error. Could this be a significant issue for existing code?

I'll just add the disclaimer that this is really cool stuff and I'm not trying to be pedantic or needlessly pick holes. I'd like to be able to contribute more but I really haven't got my head around the main inference machinery, so all I can really do is try out some examples.

The safe/imprecise distinction is sort of lossy given certain operations that are considered well-defined in generics but illegal in concrete code, e.g.

functionap<A>(fn:(x:A)=>A,x:A):(a:A)=>boolean{returny=>y===x;}declarefunctionid<A>(x:A):Aletw=ap(id,10)("s");

or by advantage of covariance when you didn't intend to

functionap<A>(fn:(x:A)=>A,x:A[]):(a:A)=>void{returna=>x.push(a);}functionid<A>(x:A):A{returnx;}constarr:number[]=[10];ap(id,arr)("s");// prints a string from a number arrayconsole.log(arr[1]);

I think being lossy in isolation is ok; it's when you try and synthesise information that you get into trouble. The first example is IMO completely fine. The conjunction of union types, and equality over generics makes comparisons like that possible.

functioneq<A>(x:A,y:A):boolean{returnx===y;}eq<number|string>(10,"s");eq(10,"s");// error

It's just the behaviour of type inference that rejects the second application because it's probably not what the user intended. I accept that my definition of 'fine' here comes from a very narrow point-of-view, and that being 'fine' and unintentional is generally unhelpful.

I agree that the second example is very much borderline, though stuff like that is going to happen with covariance because you end up synthesising information.

I'm not trying to defend the existing behaviour; I'm all in favour of being more explicit. My only concern would stem from the fact that the new behaviour is somewhat unforgiving in that it flags the error immediately at the callsite. Users that previously handled the{} type downstream (either safely, or not), will now have to fix upstream breaks. I have no idea whether this is a practical problem, though.

On a slightly different note I wonder if the new inference behaviour could come with some improved error messages. There is along way to go until TypeScript reaches the cryptic level of Haskell, but with generics always comes confusion. In particular, I wonder in the case of:

constw=ap(id,10);

The error message isArgument of type '10' is not assignable to parameter of type 'A'. I wonder if there is a way to mark the parameterA as rigid and when relating to that type, suggest that the user given an instantiation for the call, and say that inference flows left-to-right.

@ikatyang@Aleksey-Bykov@whitecolor@HerringtonDarkholme@aluanhaddad@ccorcos@gcnew@goodmind

best day ever! thank you so much@ahejlsberg and the team you made my day! i don't really know what to wish for now (except HKT's 😛 )

RefForwardingComponent declares its type parameters as static, but for a generic component, you need type parameters on the signature, ergo you make your componentlook like a ref forwarding component (and it will be compatible with one), but not actually inherit from the declared shape:

exportconstHeaderMenuItem:<Eextendsobject=ReactAnchorAttr>(props:React.PropsWithChildren<HeaderMenuItemProps<E>>,ref:React.Ref<HTMLElement>):React.ReactElement;

That works, but was hoping it was possible to do something with the interface so all future changes on that interface are propagated to my definition. Is it not possible?

Not really, no. An interface simply can't have free type variables in the location you need for a generic component.

Hello@ahejlsberg !
Thanks for your work it's of great help !

I'm facing a weird issue regarding higher order function type inferance and I'd like your insight.

I'm trying to type a compose function and can't get it to work,
it's a mere copy of your pipe function, only with the parameters in reverse order.
Not only does it not infer, it doesn't even compile !

Here's what I have

declarefunctioncompose4<Aextendsany[],B,C,D,E>(de:(d:D)=>E,cd:(c:C)=>D,bc:(b:B)=>C,ab:(...args:A)=>B,):(...args:A)=>E;constid=<T>(t:T)=>tconstcompose4id=compose4(id,id,id,id)

The error is positionned on the second parameter

Argument of type '<T>(t: T) => T' is not assignable to parameter of type '(c: T1) => T'.  Type 'T1' is not assignable to type 'T'.    'T1' is assignable to the constraint of type 'T', but 'T' could be instantiated with a different subtype of constraint '{}'.(2345)

On the other hand, the same function with parameters in piping order works fine :

declarefunctionpipe4<Aextendsany[],B,C,D,E>(ab:(...args:A)=>B,bc:(b:B)=>C,cd:(c:C)=>D,de:(d:D)=>E,):(...args:A)=>E;constpipe4id=pipe4(id,id,id,id)

Is this by design ? Do you think of any work around I might be able to use here ?

Thanks again for everything !

My bad found the related issue :#31738

RefForwardingComponent declares its type parameters as static, but for a generic component, you need type parameters on the signature, ergo you make your componentlook like a ref forwarding component (and it will be compatible with one), but not actually inherit from the declared shape:

exportconstHeaderMenuItem:<Eextendsobject=ReactAnchorAttr>(props:React.PropsWithChildren<HeaderMenuItemProps<E>>,ref:React.Ref<HTMLElement>):React.ReactElement;

Further that, is there a reason why something this wouldnt work?

constTest:<PayloadTypeextendsunknown,E=HTMLUListElement>(props:SuggestionProps<PayloadType>&RefAttributes<E>)=>ReactElement=forwardRef((props:SuggestionProps<PayloadType>,ref:Ref<E>)=>{return<h1>test</h1>;});

cc@weswigham

@maraisrPayloadType is not available in the right side of the assignment, it's only available within the type definition itself. You could also define it as a generic to your inner component, but thenPayloadType1 will not be assignable toPayloadType2 because of this error:

constTest:<PayloadTypeextendsunknown,E=HTMLUListElement>(props:PayloadType&React.RefAttributes<E>)=>React.ReactElement=React.forwardRef(<PayloadTypeextendsunknown,E=HTMLUListElement>(props:PayloadType,ref:React.Ref<E>)=>{return<h1>test</h1>;});// ERROR: 'unknown' is assignable to the constraint of type 'PayloadType', but 'PayloadType' could be instantiated with a different subtype of constraint 'unknown'.

So right now, at least as far as I can tell, the answer is to add// @ts-ignore and hope the types never change. The reason being that the error is actually not applicable here as we are guaranteeing that PayloadType will not be instantiated with a different subtype. UsingTest will then work exactly how you expect it to in TS.

It wouldn't be so bad if we could just ignore the specific error above, but sadly ts-ignore will ignore all issues. ref:#19139

Hi there! What commit is this merged in? It's difficult to find in the issue since there's a lot of mentions.

Thanks

TypeScript 3.4:https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/Roadmap#34-march-2019

Thank you@DanielRosenwasser!

Hello 👋. I'm trying to create aProvider class that stores a handler function and can be executed with some context:

interfaceProviderHandler<Aextendsany[]=any[],R=any>{(this:RequestContext, ...args:A):R}typeFlatPromise<T>=Promise<TextendsPromise<inferE> ?E :T>interfaceWrapCall{<TextendsProviderHandler>(provider:Provider<T>):TextendsProviderHandler<    inferA,    inferR>    ?(...args:A)=>FlatPromise<R>    :never}interfaceRequestContext{/* ... */call:WrapCall}classProvider<TextendsProviderHandler=ProviderHandler>{handler:Tconstructor(options:{handler:T}){this.handler=options.handler}}constcontext={/* imagine it implemented */}asRequestContext

Everything works great if handler is a simple function:

constp1=newProvider({asynchandler(){return5}})// r1 = numberconstr1=awaitcontext.call(p1)()

But it does not work with generic handlers:

constp2=newProvider({asynchandler<T>(t:T){returnt}})// actual: r2 = unknown// expected: r2 = stringconstr2=awaitcontext.call(p2)('text')

Playground link