GeezerVison

Nathan Shively-Sanders (@sandersn) Your comments are already reflected

I've made an attempt to revive this PR taking into account the requested changes at #17762.

@tycho01 oh, great! but my bad! I left this PR untouched for so long time and was even unnoticed the update on the original issue until today.

I appreciate you reused my code! Thanks!

Just wondering. Are you going to update them further and implement the additional restrictions you mentioned in #13126 (comment) ?
Currently, I'm getting difficulties finding functional update in your PR... looks they are just pure code cleaning and conflict resolution.

Nobuhiro Nakamura (@lefb766): right, I hadn't included those in there.

To answer by sub-topic there:

• known length, fixing Proposal: strict and open-length tuple types #6229: I filed a separate PR for this at Make tuples have known length #17765. The reason I separated them was that adding empty tuples should be uncontroversial (explicitly marked as 'Accepting PRs' at Empty tuple type now meaningful (at least, in unions) #13126), so I didn't wanna lump them with another feature the TS team had so far been silent on.
• ditch mutating methods: this was part of my original plan for that Make tuples have known length #17765, making a new Tuple interface extending ReadonlyArray with a length property. This caused the project to not compile anymore though, at which point I'd just quickly settled on letting it extend Array instead, as the length was my primary concern. I then got issues about it not seeing my new interface on half of the tests (wth), at which point I opted to just set that length directly from createTupleTypeForArity instead, foregoing the new interface as length had become its sole added feature.
• no index signature: I wasn't initially convinced of this, largely in fear of breaking more still than at my ReadonlyArray attempt, though I've recently been swayed this change seems a good thing. I guess it means copying ReadonlyArray into a new Tuple interface, similar minus the index. I wish I understood why we have several copies of this interface in lib.d.ts instead of just having them extend one -- if extending is okay, I'd imagine ReadonlyArray could just be extending this Tuple interface to just add its index too.

@tycho01 Thanks for explaining. I see, you have another PR.

It turns out it will be harder to find difference between #17762 and this one if I happen to solve the conflict.
I don't have idea on how to deal with this type of situation. You have?

Your investigation on the sup-topic looks interesting though. Nice work.
I have a few opinion on the topics but it may be irrelevant to write them here.

Nobuhiro Nakamura (@lefb766): wanna just stick with your PR then? If you follow mhegazy's change you may be done. :)

I'd be interested in your take on the topic, but I think the others in #13126 would be too!

@tycho01 Fair point. I'll continue this work. Sorry for bothering you and others.

Should be ready for review now. Mohamed Hegazy (@mhegazy) can you take a look?

I've selectively adopted @tycho01 's work.

Note: #6524 can also be closed after merge this PR.

Mohamed Hegazy (@mhegazy): conflict aside, is there more that could be done to improve this PR?

Thanks for your contribution. This PR has not been updated in a while and cannot be automatically merged at the time being. For housekeeping purposes we are closing stale PRs. If you'd still like to continue working on this PR, please leave a message and one of the maintainers can reopen it.