GeezerVisonThe World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory. | |
| Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites | |
GeezerVison is showing github.com — Improved checking of for-in statements by ahejlsberg · Pull Request #6379 · microsoft/TypeScript Conversation
Member
This PR fixes #6346 by implementing two changes:
An example: var a: MyObject[]; for (var x in a) { // Type of x is implicitly string var obj = a[x]; // Type of obj is MyObject } With this PR, the type of For historical reasons we have used type The use of type var a: MyObject[]; for (var x in a) { // Accidentally used for-in instead of for-of x.myObjectMethod(); // Reports an error now, but didn't before } This PR is a breaking change for certain (suspicious) constructs. For example: var a: MyObject[]; for (var x in a) { if (x == 1) { // Previously ok, now an error // ... } } Previously, the static type of
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Why do you need to climb up? Can't you look up the variable declaration from the symbol and just check if the parent is a ForInStatement?
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Actually, I realized it's partially because you might have multiple variable declarations. But in that case, you'll have gotten an error on inconsistent types between the two variables anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter.
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Several reasons we need to climb up. Multiple declarations is one, making sure we're actually within a for-in statement is another, supporting for-in that references a variable instead of declaring one is a third.
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactions
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah, gotcha. Maybe you should add a comment in case anyone stumbles along and tries to "optimize" it in the future
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. All reactionsBetter error message when object with numeric index signature is indexed with a string
Member
Author
All reactions
Sorry, something went wrong. Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Anders Hejlsberg (ahejlsberg)
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Improved checking of for-in statements
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
ReviewersNo reviewsUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. AssigneesNo one assignedLabels
Breaking Change
ProjectsMilestoneNo milestoneDevelopmentSuccessfully merging this pull request may close these issues. Solve the for-in / indexer messUh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page. 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. | |
| You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up. Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required. |