Index signature & iterators

[jbondc]

interface Files {
    [key: number]: SomeFile
    length: number
}
var data: Files = []
// no complaints
for (var i in data) {
}

// Type 'Files' is not an array type or a string type
for (let file of data) {
}

I'm not sure what is the right move here. Files has an index but that doesn't mean it's iterable/enumerable. Think the check should just be removed.

[JsonFreeman]

This code is reasonable in ES5, but in ES6 you would have to declare it Iterable (which I think you allude to later). I would be fine with ES5 type check allowing iteration on ArrayLike things (types with a numeric indexer and a length). This could only be allowed for ES5 though, not ES3 or ES6.

[RyanCavanaugh]

This could only be allowed for ES5 though, not ES3 or ES6.

😨

[JsonFreeman]

@jbondc, those cannot work in ES5 because the downlevel emit for ES5 depends on the object having a length and an indexer. Since neither a length nor an indexer is present in r or b, it has to be an error.

[mhegazy]

one issue to keep in mind that strings cannot be treated as an array if it has surrogate pairs. e.g.: `

"𠮷".length === 2;
for(var i of "𠮷) {
    charCount ++;
}
charCount === 1;

[JsonFreeman]

Oh yeah, so in effect, it is not even correct to allow strings in ES5

[JsonFreeman]

Actually, does ES5 even have surrogate pairs? Do they even support characters that involve surrogate pairs?

[mhegazy]

Actually, does ES5 even have surrogate pairs? Do they even support characters that involve surrogate pairs?

There is nothing wrong with surrogate pairs, the issue is when you iterate on them.

Oh yeah, so in effect, it is not even correct to allow strings in ES5

We can not get the correct semantics 100% of the time without a helper function that can understand surrogate pairs. I do not know if that means we should/should not consider enabling strings though.

[JsonFreeman]

I think we can still support iterating over strings. Surrogate pairs are a pretty marginal case.

[mhegazy]

i agree :)

[JsonFreeman]

Your second and third examples compile in TypeScript when target is ES6. But they will not compile in ES5 because neither Symbol nor Array.from is defined in ES5. This is an accurate representation of the runtime behavior.

[JsonFreeman]

Oh I see what you mean now. If data, were iterable in ES6, we would emit:

for (let file of data) { }

But if it is only ArrayLike, we would emit

for (let file of Array.from(data)) { }

However, this violates a key principle of TypeScript emit, which is that we do not change emit based on type information. The reason is that the view of the types in your program is not perfect, and it is merely descriptive, a glimpse of what will happen at runtime. But it is intended to be used as a guide to the user, and should not impact the behavior of your program.

[saschanaz]

Can we implement WebIDL-style iterable keyword to enable this?

interface NodeList iterable<Node> {}

This code in ES6 will be same with:

interface NodeList {
    [Symbol.iterator](): IterableIterator<Node>
}

... while still allowing for-of loop in ES5 without Symbol support.

[saschanaz]

@jbondc My thought is we may add an internal flag for iterable interfaces in ES5 while not changing emit.

for (let node of document.querySelectorAll(".foo .bar")) {} // allowed

let nodeList: NodeList;
nodeList = document.querySelectorAll(".baz"); // okay
nodeList = <{ [key: string]: Node; length: number }>{}; // no `iterable` flag, not allowed.

[saschanaz]

Your first example with iterable flag will be:

interface Files iterable<SomeFile> {
    [key: number]: SomeFile;
    length: number;
}
var data: Files = [] // okay, as arrays are iterable
for (let file of data) {} // data is iterable, so okay

PS: for-of loop in this case should require all three iterable flag, index signature and length property in ES5 mode.