GeezerVison

Awesome, this is my most anticipated feature! One thing I don't quite understand is how will this work with rest spread operator? For example what inferred return type this function will have?

function foo<T extends { x: string }>(obj: T) {
    const { x, ...rest } = obj;
    return rest;
}

Farkhad Khatamov (@hatamov) This PR doesn't change the behavior of rest properties. However, I'm considering a separate PR that would use the Pick and Exclude predefined types to compute rest types:

function foo<T extends { a: string, b: string }>(obj: T) {
    let { a, b, ...rest } = obj;  // let rest: Pick<Exclude<T, 'a' | 'b'>>
}

Anders Hejlsberg (@ahejlsberg) Would it be possible to use Pick and Exclude to more precisely construct the resulting type of spreading an instantiable type?

function spread<T, U>(t: T, u: U) {
    return { ...t, ...u };  // Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, keyof U>> & U
}

Of course this needs to be a little bit more complex to correctly handle optional properties.

Would it be possible to use Pick and Exclude to more precisely construct the resulting type of spreading an instantiable type?

It's possible, see for example my comment here. However, it ends up generating very complex types (and commensurately complex error messages), and even then we still lack accurate representation of which properties were declared optional and which properties are "own enumerable" properties.

Nathan Shively-Sanders (@sandersn) Your comments should be addressed now. In some cases I moved the tests, in others I just updated the comments.

Thus, spreads of the same types may produce different results when they are created through instantiation of generic types

Is the following behaviour also grouped under this description?

function ripoff<T>(augmented: T): T {
  const { ...original } = augmented;
  return original;
}

interface Foo {
  x: number;
  (y: string): number;
}

const foo = (x: string) => x.length;
foo.x = 42;
const x: Foo = ripoff(foo);
x("string") // TypeError: x is not a function

Did the team consider returning the type Pick<T, keyof T> instead?

Jack Williams (@jack-williams) Yes, except that's rest, not spread. The principle is the same though. We think that pattern of spreading a callable object is rare, especially in generic functions like ripoff. (Non-generic uses are already correct.)

Nathan Shively-Sanders (@sandersn)

Yes, except that's rest, not spread.

Yep sorry, silly mistake.

We think that pattern of spreading a callable object is rare, especially in generic functions like ripoff.

I agree that the callable case is rare (and contrived) but there are other object invariants someone might expect to be preserved by a function of type <X>(x: X) => X. The current choice seems to be invested in either having rest preserve all these invariants (current and future new object features) or having the violation of these invariants being suitable rare or low-impact as to not matter.

I expect my concerns are unfounded, it just seems that types like Pick are exactly what you want in this situation.

Is this expected? Playground

function func2<T extends { a: string, b: string }>(param: T)
    : { a: string, b: string } {
    const { a, ...rest } = param;
    const x = rest.b; // Property 'b' does not exist on type 'Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, "a">>'.
    return { a, ...rest }; // Property 'b' is missing in type '{ a: string; } & Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, "a">>' 
                           // but required in type '{ a: string; b: string; }'.
}

JasonKleban That was fixed by #29121, give it a try with typescript@next.

A bit of an aside to Anders' comment:

Would it be possible to use Pick and Exclude to more precisely construct the resulting type of spreading an instantiable type?

It's possible, see for example my comment here. However, it ends up generating very complex types (and commensurately complex error messages), and even then we still lack accurate representation of which properties were declared optional and which properties are "own enumerable" properties.

I was looking at typing Object.assign better, and there's a few modifications that could be made to
Omit make it generate (somewhat) nicer-looking types, which helps with intellisense inspection of inferred types, etc.

Given:

let x_1 = { x: 1 };
let x_true = { x: true };
let x_string = { x: "hello" };

If we wanted to type assign 'more precisely' (but not 'most precisely'?) we could write:

const assign3 =
    <T, U, V> (first: T, second: U, third: V)
        : (Omit<T, keyof (U&V)> & Omit<U, keyof V> & V) =>
        Object.assign(first, second, third) as any;

The library Omit type is:

type Omit<T, K extends keyof any> = Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, K>>

The generated result type looks pretty bad:

To improve it, we can handle the "exclude everything" case like so:

type Omit<T, K extends keyof any> =
    Exclude<keyof T, K> extends never
    ? {}
    : Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, K>>;

This greatly simplifies the generated type:

However, if we add back more properties...

let x_1 = { x: 1, j: 2 };
let x_true = { x: true, k: 2 };
let x_string = { x: "hello", l: 2 };

We are again in "scary type" territory:

To improve this we can inline Pick into the definition:

type Omit<T, K extends keyof any> =
    Exclude<keyof T, K> extends never
    ? {}
    : { [k in Exclude<keyof T, K>]: T[k] };

And we end up with something a bit nicer (although there seems to be no way to force & to reduce):

I'm not sure if this is worth doing to Omit or if there should be some attribute that can be applied to types like Pick saying that they are "transparent" and should always be fully expanded, never shown.

interface InputProps {
    name: string
    value: any
}


interface SelectProps extends InputProps{
    items: any[]
}

export const Input =  (props : InputProps) => {
    return <div>Sono un input</div>
}

export const Select =  (props : SelectProps) => {
    return <div>Sono un Select</div>
}



type PropsOf<T> = T extends React.ComponentType<infer Props> ? Props : object

// type BPropsOf<T> = PropsOf<BaseFieldProps<T>>

type BaseFieldProps<T> = {
    field1: string
    field2: boolean
    component: React.ComponentType<PropsOf<T>>
} & {
    [Property in keyof PropsOf<T>]: PropsOf<T>[Property]
}


// type FieldProps = BaseFieldProps<InputProps>  // & PropsOf<BaseFieldProps<InputProps>['component']>

//  & PropsOf<FieldProps['component']> 
function Field < C >(props : BaseFieldProps<C>){
    return <div>Sono un field</div>
}


export const Home =  () => {
    return (
        <div>
            <h2>I am body</h2>
            <Field<typeof Select>
                field1="field1"
                field2    
                component={Select}
               {/* Here all the properties of the component */}
            />
        </div>
    )
}

There is a way to avoid having to write the generic "typeof Select" near "Field" and extract it from the prop "component"??