GeezerVison

Did you consider using const as a hook for enabling deep excess property checking for arbitrary union and intersection types?

A question:
Will be possible to write:

let obj = {
    x: 10,
    z: { a: { b: 42 } } as const
};

to initialize a type like:

let obj: {
  x: number;
  z: {
    readonly a: {
      readonly b: 42;
    };
  };
};

If yes, probably you want to add a test like that.

This is AWESOME. Thank you Anders Hejlsberg (@ahejlsberg)!

Did you consider using const as a hook for enabling deep excess property checking for arbitrary union and intersection types?

I did not. Can you provide an example of what you mean exactly?

Will be possible to write (object literal with const assertions in some property values)

Yes.

If yes, probably you want to add a test like that.

Sure.

Anders Hejlsberg (@ahejlsberg)

Currently neither of these give excess property errors:

const u: { x: number } | { y: string } = { x: 42, y: "helloworld" };
const i: { a: { x: number } & { y: string } } & { b: boolean } = { a: { x: 42, y: "y", z: "excess" }, b: true };

Though these EPC bugs are on the backlog to fix for all literals, there are 2 obstacles:

1. Adding it would be a breaking change (but a good one IMO).
2. Adding it might introduce a perf. regression. I believe EPC is done today in a cheap way that can quickly prune large union types. I think fixing the general case requires a full relation check; there is no free lunch to be had.

I'm suggesting that maybe these give errors by using const contexts as a marker to enable complete and correct EPC:

const u: { x: number } | { y: string } = { x: 42, y: "helloworld" } as const; // error 'y' is excess (or some better error)
const i: { a: { x: number } & { y: string } } & { b: boolean } = { a: { x: 42, y: "y", z: "excess" }, b: true } as const; // error 'z' is excess

Basically using const contexts as a way to trial full-EPC in a way that does not introduce any breaking changes. If the trial is successful then full-EPC can be rolled out to all literals with const being ahead of the curve; if the trail does not work out then full-EPC can be removed in const contexts in a non-breaking way.

Can it be also assumed in certain situations?

Like:

const a: 12; // type is 12
let x = {
  // Can this be `const`? 
  // Either always, or only when it's `readonly x1: a`. It's fine either way.
  x1: a 
};

The situation here being assignment to a constant, and fine to require readonly for this.

Also, one important situation (as mentioned with more details):

function createAction<TType>(type: TType) {
    // Not concerned with return types here, but inferred argument type
    return {
        type: type
    };
}

// Today this gets inferred as string, but can string literal be inferred as itself?
const doStuff = createAction("DO_STUFF");

The situation here being sending a literal (string or number) to a function with argument type being generic and inferred from usage. It'll be nice to avoid const in createAction("DO_STUFF" const).

Next step: allowing importing JSON modules as const

Is the const keyword from somewhere else? To me it's confusing and easy to conflate with the const variable declaration keyword. immutable would be clearer for me.

Is the const keyword from somewhere else? To me it's confusing and easy to conflate with the const variable declaration keyword. immutable would be clearer for me.

That would require adding a new keyword for dubious benefit. Personally I think readonly would have been preferable to const (since it has the effect of adding readonly modifiers deeply through a tree of types). But const has the advantage of being short 🤷‍♂️

Maybe literal would do it justice?

let x = 10 as literal; 
const y = 10 as literal; 

But it was already a literal, before you added as literal...

be it a wanker i would not say a thing, but sure let's nitpick and bike shed this thing to the bone, because we can and it's just useless otherwise

Question: if the as const clause recursively adds readonly to object literals, why not calling it as readonly? Not a big issue, but introduces some ambiguity with the native ES6 const which has slightly different meaning than TS' readonly

to those who believes in readonly modifiers, will it make your array properties readonly "deeply through a tree of types"?

Anders Hejlsberg (@ahejlsberg) Would there be any way to dynamically concatenate two literal types to produce a new literal type using this const context?

For example, in a function like...

const concatLiterals = <A extends string, B extends string>(a: A, b: B) =>
  `${a}{b}` as const // or (a + b) as const

I'm assuming the dynamic nature of the above here would prevent this from working, and it would still widen the type to string, but this capability is something I've wanted for a while.

It would be great to have some sort of type-level concat helper for literals like this.... so that you could do something like:

(a + b) as (const: A + B)

or

`${a}{b}` as (const: ConcatLit<A, B>)

or something along those lines.

Apparently as readonly instead of as const was considered and decided against, see the meeting notes. I understand the reasoning, but I still think as readonly is more intuitive 😛

I agree with as const being kind of confusing. Maybe the only reason I don't feel as strongly against it is the explanation itself is relatively consistent with the current distinction of const and readonly.

I suspect that we'll end up with a quick fix like Did you mean 'as const'? when someone writes as readonly.

oh let's not forget what readonly really is #13002

Somehow I knew exactly what you linked to before I clicked on it.

This is probably out of the scope, but:
it will be nice to have a way to also "kill" methods that mutating objects in place.
Such as: Array.sort, Array.splice, Date.setDate

+1 for as readonly because that's what it actually does.
TypeScript already has a high syntax overhead and adding more cognitive load by requiring the user to keep in mind how readonly thing translates and relates to thing as const should be avoided.

A question regarding this....
One of the usages of the Readonly type is to allow methods to return a Readonly object like so

interface foo {
   bar: string
}
function foobar(): ReadonlyArray<foo> {
}

Is it possible to return something like so

function foobar(): foo as const {
}

Would really like to have a use case like the above included as well, as it would help a lot with immutability.

Is there a way to allow constant string to represent string literals? For example:

const moduleName = "../../../Project/src/Mod";

async function doSomething() {
    var mod = await import(moduleName); // (works only if a string literal at the moment)
}

In the case above, "mod" is of type "any" because the compiler doesn't recognize the string literal in the constant moduleName (for literal strings, the types are correctly pulled). I'm not sure if this was an oversight, but it makes sense to allow it, since constant strings cannot be reassigned. The only workaround is to wrap await import("../../../Project/src/Mod"); in a function:

async function getMod() { return import("../../../Project/src/Mod"); }
async function doSomething() {
    var mod = await getMod(); // (method required since const strings cannot be used to import module type)
}    

I may also add, it seems very difficult to import namespaces using dynamic imports, which I think is another terrible oversight.

async function doSomething() {
    var mod = await import("../../../Project/src/Mod"); // (forced to use a string literal to get typings)
    var o: mod.SomeClass; // ERROR, cannot find namespace 'mod'
    // var o: InstanceType<typeof mod.SomeClass>; // workaround1
    // var o: import("../../../Project/src/Mod").SomeClass; // workaround2 (who wants to keep typing full paths? A const string would be nice here.)
}

That doesn't even make sense. A namespace, while a type, is still a reference under the hood, and thus should still be importable dynamically somehow; perhaps like:

async function doSomething() {
    import mod = await import("../../../Project/src/Mod"); // (forced to use a string literal to get typings)
    var o: mod.SomeClass;
}

I think all this would aim to better support dynamic imports "on demand" instead of modules forcibly loading every single module when some may not be needed at all, It could also help promote faster initial page loads in many cases. ;)

James (@rjamesnw) since this PR is already merged I don't expect that you can get traction for anything new, but this is a good one actually. Can you please open a new issue for it? Thanks.

You’re right, sorry, it also occurred to me and I was going to get to doing so asap. ;)

Update: Issue created: #32401

Why would someone use let for declaring a variable which is typed with as const?

let numbers = [1, 2, 3] as const;

Excuse me,why is the error reported?

const arr = [
  { age: 12, fruits: 'apple' },
  { age: 16, fruits: 'cherry' },
  { fruits: 'banana' },
] as const

type Fruits = typeof arr[number]['fruits']

arr.map(({ age, fruits }) => {
  //Property 'age' does not exist on type 
  //'{ readonly age: 12; readonly fruits: "apple"; } | { readonly age: 16; readonly fruits: "cherry"; } | { readonly fruits: "banana"; }'.
  console.log(age)
})

Excuse me,why is the error reported?

Because not every element of the array has an age property.

I found out that as const does not work after a variable has been declared:

let x = 12;
x = 2 as const;

x = 5;

console.log(x); // 5

Also you'll get no error if the reassigned value is like the previous value:

let x = [1, 2] as const;

x = [1, 2]; // works

Excuse me,why is the error reported?

Because not every element of the array has an age property.

Is there a way to type an array of objects declared using as const if some of the objects lack properties that other objects have?

While as const turned out to be a really nice feature, it does have its drawbacks.