Closed as not planned
Description
openedon Jan 29, 2024
π Search Terms
never, intersection, contradiction
π Version & Regression Information
- This is the behavior in every version I tried, and I reviewed the FAQ for entries about
never
β― Playground Link
π» Code
// These variations on never are both reported by intellisense as `never`.
// That's a problem because they behave differently in a subtle way
type NominalNever = never
// ^?
type StructuralNever = {x:1} & {x:2}
// ^?
// We will be exploring this with the builtin ReturnType generic type
// type ReturnType<T extends (...args: any) => any> = T extends (...args: any) => infer R ? R : any;
// ReturnType constrains the generic so non-callable types give a useful error message
// @ts-expect-error
type R0 = ReturnType<{x:1}> // error - very helpful!
// `never` is treated specially by the conditional type construct
// the conditional is short-circuited and the conditional evaluates to `never` instead of either the true or false branch.
type R1 = ReturnType<never> // never
// ^?
// but with an impossible intersection,
// 1. the type constraint does not kick in as a safeguard
// 2. the conditional is not short-circuited to 'never'
// 3. the conditional evaluates to the true branch only even though there's no reason to prefer either branch
// the return type is inferred as `unknown`, seemingly because it's an upper bound on the type parameter
// type R2 = unknown; expected never
type R2 = ReturnType<{x:1} & {x:2}>
// ^?
// even if a return type is *structurally* declared, it is ignored by type inference
// type R3 = unknown; expected "X"
type R3 = ReturnType<{x:1} & {x:2} & ((...args: any[]) => "X")>
// ^?
π Actual behavior
When intersecting two object types with a conflicting value, the user-observable hinted type is never
, but the type interacts with generic templates in a nonsensical way.
π Expected behavior
I expect either (or both):
- conflicting intersections to treated the same as the nominal
never
type for constrained generics and conditional types. In particular:- The generic constraint would need to be (re)checked, so that an error is reported if the type constraint is refuted.
- The conditional type will need to be (re)checked, so that the conditional is
never
- conflicting intersections to be represented by their structural properties instead of an opaque "
never
" type.- This might be nice to do anyway. Such
never
s merit different compiler behavior (e.g. when trying to access a property on a conflicted type) so showing it as e.g.never<"conflicted .x">
would go a long way to making the behavior less frustratingly opaque.
- This might be nice to do anyway. Such
Additional information about the issue
No response
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment