Add overloads for 'map' on tuple types#11252
Merged
DanielRosenwasser merged 5 commits intomasterfrom Oct 4, 2016
Merged
Conversation
mhegazy
approved these changes
Sep 29, 2016
Contributor
mhegazy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 after fixing failing tests
Member
|
This is specialised for [T, T] tuples, which aren't that common. In #6574 @aluanhaddad makes two good points:
Can't individuals augment the Array interface themselves if they want this type for |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR fixes #6574.
Sometimes users have the expectation that calling
mapon a homogeneous tuple will create a tuple type of the same size, but with the element types appropriately mapped on. For instance:Now that we have
this-types, we can actually enable overloads that can only apply if the target object (the thing being dotted on) has a specific type.I'd like to hear feedback from the team (especially @sandersn & @ahejlsberg) about whether this is a good idea. This fulfills a lot of users' expectations, but they could instead just augment
Array<T>with these overloads if they're interested.Also tagging @philpee2 who asked me about this yesterday.