You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Is there ambitions to add typescript typings for this project?
If so, I could maybe help you do them.
Describe the solution you'd like
The thing is, I'm not sure how we would go about implementing types for the "syntax-sugar"-mode of this, i.e. #{} and #[], maybe orta (https://github.com/orta) could chime in on this. But, the Record and Tuple constructors should be possible to do I think.
Describe alternatives you've considered
I think just waiting it out would be OK for me too 👍
Additional context
None that I can think of.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The current support for types in the playground is a bit (a lot) of a hack, it just intercepts the program string before it is sent to the language server and any instances of #{ or #[ are replaced with { or [`. This means that TypeScript never sees the original syntax, so it can only provide an object-based type for the value. This will certainly be improved once TypeScript proper has support for the syntax.
Awesome work!
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Is there ambitions to add typescript typings for this project?
If so, I could maybe help you do them.
Describe the solution you'd like
The thing is, I'm not sure how we would go about implementing types for the "syntax-sugar"-mode of this, i.e.
#{}
and#[]
, maybe orta (https://github.com/orta) could chime in on this. But, theRecord
andTuple
constructors should be possible to do I think.Describe alternatives you've considered
I think just waiting it out would be OK for me too 👍
Additional context
None that I can think of.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: