Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs(lettable): mention TS >= 2.4 is required #2869

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

docs(lettable): mention TS >= 2.4 is required #2869

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

cyrilletuzi
Copy link

Fixes #2856

@rxjs-bot
Copy link

Messages
📖

CJS: 1342.5KB, global: 737.3KB (gzipped: 137.9KB), min: 144.6KB (gzipped: 30.7KB)

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ Starting in version 5.5 we have shipped "lettable operators", which can be acces

**NOTE**: During 5.5 beta we will be bikeshedding a few of the names for operators that we had to give new names to due to keyword restrictions in javascript.

**NOTE**: If you're using TypeScript, version >= 2.4 is required, otherwise lettable operators will lose the type and compilation will break.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a little more "doom and gloom" than I'd like.. It sounds like you can't use TypeScript 2.3 or under, which isn't true. It should just be NOTE: in TypeScript 2.3 and under, typings will need to be added to functions passed to operators or something like that.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Even if it's true technically, in real world no one will do this. You really need to add the type to each functions, sometimes even twice, so that's clearly not usable. And in some way it's really an error, as lettable operators transfer the wrong type in TS < 2.4, then causing real compilation errors when you do any action on the data. But you're the owner, you choose what's best.

@benlesh benlesh closed this in 5dbad94 Oct 4, 2017
@benlesh
Copy link
Member

benlesh commented Oct 4, 2017

I've added a section to the docs to cover this in more detail. It can be found here

Thank you for pointing out that we needed this, @cyrilletuzi

@cyrilletuzi cyrilletuzi deleted the patch-1 branch October 5, 2017 13:36
@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at ?% when pulling 0dac22d on cyrilletuzi:patch-1 into d24f5b9 on ReactiveX:master.

@lock
Copy link

lock bot commented Jun 5, 2018

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 5, 2018
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants