3
Everything already works as expected in my code. What I want is to make it more verbose, making the signatures of the method more self-explanatory (I know I can use Docs comments for this, but I would also like to use the types of Typescript) and can be better validated by Tslint's of life.
What I have today:
class Test{
testMetadada<T>(expression: (t: T) => void) {
// ...
}
}
The object expression
is the type (t: T) => void
, which is not very explanatory, I would like for example that something like:
class Expression<T> extends (t: T) => void{
}
or
interface Expression<T> extends (t: T) => void{
}
or
let Expression = ((t: T) => void)<T>;
So my method would be something like:
class Test{
testMetadada<T>(expression: Expression) {
// ...
}
}
Where Expression
represented the same (t: T) => void
.
Is there anything I can do about it?
Behold here’s the example of what I’m trying to implement with this (the possibility of using
Arrow function
of Typescript as expressions Lambda Expressions of C# to obtain metadata)
I liked the question. I think I can think of something if you give a more "palpable" example, I couldn’t quite understand what you want to do.
– Jéf Bueno
@LINQ, well, what I want is nothing functional, is just to be able to create a Type, which presents the Function parameter. Looking at it now it seems to be something a little confusing indeed. I don’t quite know how to have something more "palpable". Looked at the example? What is not clear to you? If you can ask me about the points you don’t understand about my goal?
– Fernando Leal
@LINQ, see, what I want is to make the guy
(t: T) => void
of the method parametertestMetadada
a guy really in the Typescript, this could be through an Object, Class or Interface. Will improved?– Fernando Leal