Add [Constructor]Parameters types to lib.d.ts#26243
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
ahejlsberg
approved these changes
Aug 31, 2018
Member
Author
|
Looks like this broke the build because we now elaborate errors more often. I'll send a follow-up PR that updates the baselines with more elaborations. |
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
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Based on #26042 and discussion from the most recent design meeting. Thanks @anurbol for creating the initial PR.
It turns out that our tests have a couple of examples of looser definitions of
Parameters. The differences are instructive:This looser definition allows:
Functionto create an array of parametersany[].T extends any[]to be used as the type of rest parameters.(1) is pretty questionable and is fine to disallow, I think. (2) is now handled by
ParametersvsConstructorParameters. (3) is unsound, as pointed out in #26013, since it is equivalent to allowing the assignability ofT extends any[]toany[]. So I think all 3 differences are improvements. I preserved them in the test baselines.Fixes #26019