Proposal: Interval Types / Inequality Types

AnyhowStep

Related Proposals:

Range as Number type: Suggestion: Range as Number type #15480
Range type for arrays: https://gist.github.com/rbuckton/5fd81582fdf86a34b45bae82d842304c
NaN / integer / float type: Add a --strictNaNChecks option, and a NaN / integer / float type to avoid runtime NaN errors #28682

This proposal is partly based on AnyhowStep's comment and describes the addition of an IntervalType to TypeScript.

📃 Goals / Motivation

Provide developers with a type system that prevents them from forgetting range checks on numbers similar to how we prevent them from forgetting string validation and numeric constant checks.

An interval primitive defines a range of numbers, limited up to a specific value. For example, less than 10 is an interval boundary (this wording may be subject to change).

Non-Goals

Integer types
Dependent types
NaN or (-)Infinity literal type
Distinction between double and floats

Definitions

The idea is to extend type-narrowing for relational comparisons (<, >, <=, >=), in addition to the currently existing mechanism to narrow by equality (== !=, ===, !==).

The emerging type is one that lays between literal types (a type with a single value) and the number type.

Syntax

NonArrayType := ...
                | IntervalType

IntervalType := '(' RelationalOperator  IntervalTypeLimit ')'
RelationalOperator  := '<' | '<=' | '>' | '>='
IntervalTypeLimit   := NumberLiteral

So, in code we'd do something like this:

export interface IntervalType extends Type {
    limit: IntervalTypeLimit;
    constraint: RelationalOperator;
}

export type RelationalOperator =
    | SyntaxKind.LessThanToken
    | SyntaxKind.LessThanEqualsToken
    | SyntaxKind.GreaterThanToken
    | SyntaxKind.GreaterThanEqualsToken
    ;

Side-Note: There is also a suggestion by @btoo to use the new intrinsic type and generics instead of a distinct syntax (like GreaterThan<5>).

Semantics

// a must be a positive number
let a: (>0) = 1;
a = -1; // Error, cannot assign -1 to (>0)

function takePositiveNumber(v: (>0)) {
    // ...
}
takePositiveNumber(a);
takePositiveNumber(-1); // Error, cannot assign -1 to (>0)

Currently, IntervalTypeLimit can only ba a NumberLiteral. Allowing references to other types would make this feature significantly more different. There may be a useful opportunity when it comes to generics (see below).

Assignability

A variable of type A is assignable to one of type B:

let a: A;
let b: B = a; // ok, iff...

A\B	`(> y)`	`(>= y)`	`(< y)`	`(<= y)`
`(> x)`	x >= y	x >= y	`false`	`false`
`(>= x)`	x > y	x >= y	`false`	`false`
`(< x)`	`false`	`false`	x <= y	x <= y
`(<= x)`	`false`	`false`	x < y	x <= y

Assignability when constants are involved:

const c: c;
let b: B = c; // ok, iff...

c\B	`(> x)`	`(>= x)`	`(< x)`	`(<= x)`
number literal `k`	x < k	x <= k	x > k	x >= k
`NaN`	`false`	`false`	`false`	`false`
`Infinity`	`true`	`true`	`false`	`false`
`-Infinity`	`false`	`false`	`true`	`true`
`null`	`false`	`false`	`false`	`false`
`undefined`	`false`	`false`	`false`	`false`
any non-number type	`false`	`false`	`false`	`false`

Since the IntervalType is NumberLike, one can do everything with it what can be done with number.

Control-Flow

The core idea is that we extend type narrowing and combine that with union and intersection types:

let a: number = 12;

if (a > 10) {
    a; // (>10)

    if (a < 20) {
        a; // (>10) & (<20)
    }

    a; // (>10)
}

if (a > 10 || a < 0) {
    a; // (>10) | (<0)
    if (a > 10) {
        a; // (>10)
    } else {
        a; // (<0)
    }
}

Union and Intersection Types

Interval types can be used in an intersection type:

type Probability = (>=0) & (<=1);
function random(): Probability { /* ... */ }

A union or intersection type may only contain at most two interval boundaries:

(>10) | (>20) will be reduced to (>10)
(>10) & (>20) will be reduced to (>20)
(<10) & (>10) will be reduced to never
(<10) | (>10) will not get simplified, it remains (<10) | (>10)
...
For (>=1) | (<1), see below

Other cases how interval boundaries interact with existing types:

number | (>1) is reduced to number
number & (>1) is reduced to (>1)
(>1) & <any non-number type> is reduced to never

Subject for discussion: Handling of `(>1|2|3)`

It may be appropriate to expand this as (>1) | (>2) | (>3) (which would be normalized to (>1)). Or we just prohibit this kind of use.

The case of `(>=1) | (<1)`

Consider this code:

let a: number = 10;
if (a > 9) {
	a; // (>9)
} else {
	a; // number
}

In the else branch, we widen the type back to number instead of narrowing to (<=9). This is because we'd also branch to else, if a would be NaN. So, number implicitly contains NaN.
If a variable's type is/contains an interval boundary, its value cannot be NaN.

This opens up the question on how we should handle (>=1) | (<1). Semantically, it is equivalent to number \ {NaN}, so number would not be equivalent here.

It would feel more natural to the developer if (>=1) | (<1) would become number (including NaN), since not reducing it to number would look weird.

If we'd have negated types (#29317) as well as a NaN type, we could model this as number & not NaN. This may outweigh practical use and would be against the design rules (see the third entry in "Non-Goals"; this is an opinion).
We also don't have a NaN type and there is currently no intent to introduce it.

If we'd decide against the simplification to number, it would make discriminated unions work more easily.

Discriminated Unions via Interval Boundary Types?

Having discriminated unions based on intervals is not yet evaluated that much. Considering the problem with (>=1) | (<1), this may not be possible. For example:

type A = {
    success: (>0.5)
    data: boolean;
};
type B = {
    success: (<=0.5);
    message: string;
};
type Result = A | B;
Result["success"]; // number

declare let res: Result;
if (res.success > 0.5) {
    res.data; // ok
} else {
    res; // still `Result`, because in the `else` branch, res.success is still `number`
}

Discriminated unions would work if the else branch of the example in (>=1) | (<1) would resolve to (<=9). For that to work, we need to drop NaN.

We could also solve this problem by not simplifying (>=1) | (<1) to number, so Result["success"] would be (>0.5) | (<=0.5) instead of number.

Normalization of Unions and Intersections

When n interval boundaries are unified or intersected, the result will always be a single boundary, exactly two boundaries, a number literal, number or never.
Normalization is commutative, so one half of the table is empty.

Normalizing `A | B`:

A\B	`(> y)`	`(>= y)`	`(< y)`	`(<= y)`
`(> x)`	`(> min(x, y))`	y <= x ? `(>= y)` : `(> x)`	y > x ? `number` : `(> x) or (< y)`	y < x ? `(>= x) or (<= y)` : `number`
`(>= x)`	-	`(>= min(x, y))`	y >= x ? `number` : `(>= x) or (< y)`	y < x ? `(>= x) or (<= y)` : `number`
`(< x)`	-	-	`(< max(x, y))`	y < x ? `(< x)` : `(<= y)`
`(<= x)`	-	-	-	`(<= max(x, y))`

(due to a limitation of markdown tables, we use or instead of |)

Normalizing `A & B`:

A\B	`(> y)`	`(>= y)`	`(< y)`	`(<= y)`
`(> x)`	`(> max(x, y))`	y <= x ? `(> x)` : `(>= y)`	y > x ? `(> x) & (< y)` : `never`	y > x ? `(> x) & (<= y)` : `never`
`(>= x)`	-	`(>= max(x, y))`	y > x ? `(>= x) & (< y)` : `never`	y < x ? `never` : (y == x ? `y` : `(>= x) & (<= y)`)
`(< x)`	-	-	`(< min(x, y))`	x > y ? `(<= y)` : `(< x)`
`(<= x)`	-	-	-	`(<= min(x, y))`

If an interval is equality-compared to a literal, we either narrow down to the respective literal or never.
Further narrowing a boundary intersection via control flow will not increase the number of interval boundaries present in the type:

let a: number = 10;
if (a > 0) {
    a; // (>0)
    if (a < 10) {
        a; // (>0) & (<10)
        if (a < 5) {
            a; // (>0) & (<5)
            if (a > 4) {
                a; // (>4) & (<5)
                if (a > 5) {
                    a; // never
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

Assertions

We can do assertions like a as (>1) (where a is a number or another interval), just like with number literal types.

Widening and Arithmetics

Similar to literal types, type-level arithmetics are not supported and coerce to number. For example:

let a: (>1) = 4;
let b = a + 1; // _not_ (>2), but number

Also, applying operators like ++ and -- let the type widen to number:

let a: 1 = 1;
a++;
a; // number

let b: (>=1) = 1;
b++;
b; // number

However, due to the way interval types are always reduced to a maximum of two interval boundaries, it may be feasable to do type-level arithmetics. This proposal currently does not intent to do this.

Loops

With intervals, we can be more exact about loop variables. For example, narrowing a simple c-style for loop would come "for free" if we have flow-based type-narrowing that works for if-then-else:

for (let i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
	i; // (<10)
}

Explanation on what happens:

for (
	let i = 0; // number
	i < 10; // i -> (<10)
	++i // i -> number again
) { }

// Equivalent to

let i = 0; // number
while (i < 10) {
	i; // (<10)

	++i; // number
}

With a little more work, it may be possible to let i be (>=initial-value) & (<10). But due to the type coercion that ++ causes, this is not possible out-of-the-box.

Enum Interaction

It may be an interesting addition to allow enum literals as limit value, so we can type something like this:

function isListTerminator(kind: (< ParsingContext.Count)): boolean {
    // ...
}

isListTerminator(ParsingContext.Count); // Error
isListTerminator(ParsingContext.ClassMembers); // Ok

type AssignmentOperator = (>=SyntaxKind.FirstAssignment) & (<=SyntaxKind.LastAssignment);
function isAssignmentOperator(token: SyntaxKind): token is AssignmentOperator {
    // (return type could also be inferred here)
    return token >= SyntaxKind.FirstAssignment && token <= SyntaxKind.LastAssignment;
}

It should also be possible to pass interval types to functions that take enums (just like numbers).

Generics

Generics may be valuable to support in this proposal, when they resolve to a literal type.

Consider this implementation of clamp:

function clamp<TMin extends number, TMax extends number>(min: TMin, max: TMax, value: number): (>=TMin) & (<=TMax) {
    if (value < min)
        return min;
    if (value > max)
        return max;
    return value;
}

const v = clamp(1, 2, 3); // (>=1) & (<=2)

const a = 1;
const b = 2;
const c = clamp(a, b, 3); // (>=1) & (<=2)

// if one of the parameters is a `number`, the result would be widened and normalized:
let d: number = 1;
let e: 2 = 2;
let f = clamp(d, e, 3); // (>=number) & (<=2) -> number & (<=2) -> (<=2)

let h: number = 1;
let i: number = 2;
let j = clamp(h, i, 3); // (>=number) & (<=number) -> number & number -> number

💻 Use-Cases

We could statically type/document some APIs more explicitly, for example:

Math.random
Math.abs
clamp
Number.range
Math.sin/cos/...
a % b if a is assignable to (>=0) and b resolves to a number literal (falling back to number otherwise)
[your example here]

Functions could express their assumptions about parameters.
They would be useful to force the developer to check if they are in range before passing (similar to literal types):

declare let a: number;

function takeProbability(p: (>=0) & (<=1)) { /* ... */ }

takeProbability(a); // Error, cannot assign number to (>=0) & (<=1)
if (a <= 1) {
    takeProbability(a); // Error, cannot assign number to (>=0)
    if (a >= 0) {
        takeProbability(a); // ok
    }
    takeProbability(a); // Error, cannot assign number to (>=0)
}

function takePercentage(p: (>=0) & (<=1)) { /* ... */ }
// in the case of takePercentage, the developer will notice that it expects something in the range of 0-1 instead of 0-100 because he will receive an error.

type SafeIntegerRange = (<= Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER) & (>= Number.MIN_SAFE_INTEGER);

Feel free to add more use-cases!

✅ Viability Checklist

This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
- When interval types are not used, TS behaves the same
This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.
- Subject for discussion

🔍 Search Terms / Keywords

interval type
interval primitives, boundaries

I wanted to get into the TS compiler, so I've implemented a simple prototype of this type system extension. You can play around with it here:
https://nikeee.github.io/typescript-intervals

These features are not implement / have bugs:

Discriminated unions (see above for reason why)
Enum support
Generics
else branch sometimes does not receive the correct flow type

Some other things to explicitly disregard as goals, but may help steer design and discussion:

positive vs. negative positional vectors
periodic vs. aperiodic series
convergent vs. divergent series

These features, if they existed, would allow for compile-time detection of changes to a value in a "direction" that is not supported. For instance, a model of a closed system with some variable representing a range of values for Entropy. Not only is it (>=0) & (<=1), it must always trend in one direction only.

From there, a periodic revolution allows for a "reversing" of the positional vector, but only if they exceed the threshold of the upper limit, and immediately returns to the lower limit. Support for this is not obvious to me, and would be difficult.

The third point is similar in that it's not obvious, but in my opinion would be even more difficult to do correctly. Given a positional vector and a limit, how can brief violations of this constraint be tolerated in order to facilitate convergent series for ~~transcendental~~ computed values, e.g., the approximation of φ from the Fibonacci series?

I'm not sure I can just do this, but I'd like to suggest the % type where x extends (% y) (assuming both x and y are number literals) iff x % y == 0. This would effectively make type integer = (% 1) possible, as well. Interaction with <, > etc should probably be left untouched except maybe (> 0) & (< 5) & (% 3) should become 3, and (> 0) & (< 2) & (% 3) becomes never

Might've also been proposed already, but I couldn't find anything

So did it ever get implemeneted?

Regarding to the roadmap, no.

In its current state, it's just a proposal that is subject for discussion. So feel free to post some questions, use-cases and enhancements! :)

This would be nifty! I ran into a use case while building a Markdown parser, that shows some interaction with template literal types as well. Here's a very simplified version:

type HeadingLevel = 1|2|3|4|5|6;

function makeHeading(level: HeadingLevel): HTMLHeadingElement {
	// already correctly inferred as a HTMLHeadingElement
	return document.createElement(`h${level}` as const);
}

function getHeadingLevel(text: string): HeadingLevel|null {
	let match = /(#{1,6}) (\w+)/.exec(text);
	if(match === null) { return null; }

	let pounds: string = match[1];
	// would be nice if this were inferred to be (>=0)
	let level = pounds.length;
	
	// interval types could help to avoid this cast!
	if(level > 0 && level <= 6) { return level as HeadingLevel; }

	return null;
}

let n = getHeadingLevel("#### heading");
if(n !== null) { makeHeading(n); }

Here's my use case. I want to define a union type for an API result, something like this:

type ApiResult<T> =
  | {
      total_results: 0;
    }
  | {
      total_results: 1;
      data: T;
    }
  | {
      total_results: number; // integer >= 2
      data: T[];
    };

so that I can later narrow the type by checking the value of total_results, e.g.:

let apiResult: ApiResult<string>;

if (apiResult.total_results > 1) {
  // apiResult.data is string[]
} else if (apiResult.total_results === 1) {
  // apiResult.data is string
} else {
  // apiResult.data is not present
}

Maybe another wording could be something like "Inequality Types" originating from inequalities

is it inferable in extends clause ?

type MinRange<I extends number> = I extends (>= infer T) ? T : never;
type T0 = MinRange<(>= 100)>; // T0 will be 100

That should be possible aswell (when generic support is implemented, the playground does not support that).

can it works well with template type ?

type Hex = (>=0) & (<= 255)
type HexStr = `0x${Hex}`

One thing I'd like to request is that conditional types be improved with regards to number literals, number intervals and numbers.

e.g.

type Test1 = 5 extends NumberInterval<0, 10> ? true : false; // -> true
type Test2 = NumberInterval<0, 10> extends number ? true : false; // -> true
type Test3 = number extends NumberInterval<-Infinity, Infinity> ? true : false; // -> false
type Test4 = (typeof NaN) extends number ? true : false; // true
type Test5 = (typeof NaN) extends NumberInterval<-Infinity, Infinity> ? true : false; // false

The benefit would be that we could discern between a number literal and a number when writing a conditional type and treat them differently.

Imo creating a generic type is better than simply throwing a >= between parenthesis. Like this answer which supposedly only works for small numbers.

Yeah, maybe an intrinsic implementation for generic types like GreaterThan<T extends number | bigint> would be more DX-friendly. That also wouldn't require an extension to the grammar.

I support the proposal. It can be implemented via intrinsic types or via a new syntax. This playground shows how the intrinsic generic types could behave by outputting the constrained types as strings for manual evaluation.
Instead of limiting the syntax to (> 0) I propose (number > 0). I am not sure about the full syntax implications, but it might look something like this in real world:

type Fill = {
  value: string
  repeat: number > 0
};

It would make this feature more open for extension, like putting any union of number literals or constrained number types on the left of the operator while the union on the right side is a bit meaningless, but still possible and still yields the expected result if the intrinsic generic types are distributive.

type PositiveNumbers = GreaterThan<number, 0>;// `(${number} > 0)`
type NegativeNumbers = LessThan<number, 0>; // `(${number} < 0)`

type Probability = GreaterThanOrEqual<number, 0> & LessThanOrEqual<number, 1>;
// resolves to `(${number} >= 0)` & `(${number} <= 1)`


// Subject for discussion: Handling of (>1|2|3)
type SubjectForDiscussion = GreaterThan<number, 1 | 2 | 3>;
// resolves to `(${number} > 1)` | `(${number} > 2)` | `(${number} > 3)`
// would be reduced to `(${number} > 1)`


// (>10) | (>20)
type Reduction1 = GreaterThan<number, 10> | GreaterThan<number, 20>;
// resolves to `(${number} > 10)` | `(${number} > 20)`
// would be reduced to `(${number} > 10)`

// The same, but rely on the distributive property
// (>10) | (>20)
type Reduction1_ = GreaterThan<number, 10 | 20>
// distributes to `(${number} > 10)` | `(${number} > 20)`
// would be reduced to `(${number} > 10)`


// (>10) & (>20)
type Reduction2 = GreaterThan<number, 10> & GreaterThan<number, 20>;
// resolves to `(${number} > 10)` & `(${number} > 20)`
// would be reduced to `(${number} > 20)`

// The same, but rely on the distributive property
// (>10) & (>20)
type Reduction2_ = GreaterThan<number, 10 | 20>;
// distributes to `(${number} > 10)` & `(${number} > 20)`
// would be reduced to `(${number} > 20)`


//
// Now apply the same operation on subsets of number
//
type Stars = 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5;

type PositiveReviews = GreaterThan<Stars, 2>;
// distributes to
//   "(0 > 2)" | "(1 > 2)" | "(2 > 2)" | "(3 > 2)" | "(4 > 2)" | "(5 > 2)" 
//   "(never)" | "(never)" | "(never)" | "(3)"     | "(4)"     | "(5)    "
//                                     
//   3 | 4 | 5 

type PositiveButNotExcellentReviews = LessThan<PositiveReviews, 5>;
// distributes to
//   "((0 > 2) < 5)" | "((1 > 2) < 5)" | "((2 > 2) < 5)" | "((3 > 2) < 5)" | "((4 > 2) < 5)" | "((5 > 2) < 5)"
//   "((never) < 5)" | "((never) < 5)" | "((never) < 5)" | "(3 < 5)      " | "(4 < 5)      " | "(4 < 5)      "
//   "(never)      " | "(never)      " | "(never)      " | "(3)          " | "(4)          " | "(never)      "
//                                     
//   3 | 4

If you were just wanting to detect whether a value was a number or a numeric literal (e.g. 4), then this will works:

type IsNumericLiteral<T> = number extends T ? false : T extends number ? true : false;

type T = IsNumericLiteral<5>; // true
type U = IsNumericLiteral<number>; // false

You might also want to detect whether you are creating a union of types, too, which can be done like so:

type UnionToIntersection<U> = (U extends any ? (k: U) => void : never) extends (
  k: infer I
) => void
  ? I
  : never;
type IsUnion<T> = [T] extends [UnionToIntersection<T>] ? false : true;
type Not<A> = A extends true ? false : true;

type IsNotUnion<T> = Not<IsUnion<T>>;

type T = IsNotUnion<5>; // true
type U = IsNotUnion<5 | 3>; // false

As a temporary solution, you can use the following type:

type NumericRange<
  start extends number,
  end extends number,
  arr extends unknown[] = [],
  acc extends number = never,
> = arr['length'] extends end
  ? acc | start | end
  : NumericRange<start, end, [...arr, 1], arr[start] extends undefined ? acc : acc | arr['length']>;
  
type MyRange = NumericRange<1, 50>;

I support this proposal too.

It's a much needed feature when noUncheckedIndexedAccess tsconfig compiler option is turned on. Arrays constantly need undefined checks otherwise, like so:

const a = [1,2,3]
if(a[1] === undefined) {
	throw new Error('undefined')
}
const b: number = a[10] // ts can infer that there's been an undefined check, so the type of b can only be number now

It would be nice to have an method of guaranteeing the length and that the elements are therefore defined. Something like this type:

type Len<T extends readonly any[], L extends number> = Readonly<Pick<Required<T>, 0..L>>

The 0..L is where I need an interval or range type. I can use a union at the moment, but this is a very finite solution (I don't want to be typing out a union with 10's of thousands of entries) and inflexible. I can use a recursive type to build the union type automatically, but these fall down after ~3000 entries on my machine (due to stack overflow of recursion).

As a temporary solution, you can use the following type:

type NumericRange<
  start extends number,
  end extends number,
  arr extends unknown[] = [],
  acc extends number = never,
> = arr['length'] extends end
  ? acc | start | end
  : NumericRange<start, end, [...arr, 1], arr[start] extends undefined ? acc : acc | arr['length']>;
  
type MyRange = NumericRange<1, 50>;

Very nice !! That's exactly what I need, but there is a problem with negative values :/ :

if start = -a and end > 0, there is no values in the generated type for the interval ]-a; 0].
if start = -a and end = -b with -a < -b, there is an error

I will see if it can be fixed.

My use-case is simple - User roles. The names are ambiguated

export enum UserRole {
  Guest = -1, CompanyManager, CompanyOwner, SuperManager, SuperOwner
}

export interface GeneralUser {
  id: string
  email: string
  firstName: string
  lastName: string
  avatar: string
}

export interface SuperUser extends GeneralUser {
  role: UserRole.SuperOwner | UserRole.SuperManager
  companyId?: string
  signed: true
}

export interface CompanyUser extends GeneralUser {
  role: UserRole.CompanyOwner | UserRole.CompanyManager
  companyId: string
  signed: true
}

export interface GuestUser extends GeneralUser {
  role: UserRole.Guest
  signed: false
}

export type User = SuperUser | CompanyUser | GuestUser

And currently I'm receiving error when I try to use User type by narrowing it with <= comparison (it only works with ===):

	if (user.role === UserRole.Guest) return
    if (user.role <= UserRole.CompanyOwner) {
      // `CompanyUser` cast is used since TS doesn't handle `<=` properly.
      MyScript.set("COMPANY_ID", { companyId: (user as CompanyUser).companyId })
    }

So I'm putting the comment above to signalize it, I will also reference this issue, so maybe someone will refactor it in future 😘

BTW, I really like this proposal, I think it will be very handy.

Valery Zinchenko (@FrameMuse)

Valery Zinchenko (@FrameMuse)
I suppose your user variable is typed by User.
So inside the if block, user type is CompanyUser | GuestUser, but companyId doesn't exist for the GuestUser type, so this is normal to have a type error.
You can see this error by adding this line inside the if block: const companyId: string = user.companyId;
You have the error :
Property 'companyId' does not exist on type 'User'. Property 'companyId' does not exist on type 'GuestUser'.

The problem is not the Typescript parser, but your code. And this is wrong to cast user as CompanyUser, because it could be a GuestUser for which the companyId property doesn't exist.

Regards.

vincent-guyon_Atos (@vtgn)

vincent-guyon_Atos (@vtgn)

Valery Zinchenko (@FrameMuse) I suppose your user variable is typed by User. So inside the if block, user type is CompanyUser | GuestUser, but companyId doesn't exist for the GuestUser type, so this is normal to have a type error

I also noticed that in the code so I introduced another if, but it's not narrowing properly anyway. Thanks for the notice.

vincent-guyon_Atos (@vtgn)

vincent-guyon_Atos (@vtgn)

Valery Zinchenko (@FrameMuse) I suppose your user variable is typed by User. So inside the if block, user type is CompanyUser | GuestUser, but companyId doesn't exist for the GuestUser type, so this is normal to have a type error

I also noticed that in the code so I introduced another if, but it's not narrowing properly anyway. Thanks for the notice.

Indeed, it is strange...
If you replace your if expression by this one:
user.role !== UserRole.Guest && user.role <= UserRole.CompanyOwner)

user is now seen as SuperUser | CompanyUser inside the if block, which is wrong because SuperUser should have been excluded by the second criterium of the if expression. =/

But you should not report this bug here, because this issue is about to add new types definition operators, not the types resolution implementation. Watch if an existing issue talks about your bug, otherwise create a new one.

Regards.

vincent-guyon_Atos (@vtgn)

vincent-guyon_Atos (@vtgn)

But you should not report this bug here, because this issue is about to add new types definition operators, not the types resolution implementation. Watch if an existing issue talks about your bug, otherwise create a new one.

I couldn't find one and now I'm too lazy to create a new one, so I leave it here... Thanks anyway

vincent-guyon_Atos (@vtgn)

vincent-guyon_Atos (@vtgn)

But you should not report this bug here, because this issue is about to add new types definition operators, not the types resolution implementation. Watch if an existing issue talks about your bug, otherwise create a new one.

I couldn't find one and now I'm too lazy to create a new one, so I leave it here... Thanks anyway

You can be sure it will be ignored here... -_-°...

As a temporary solution, you can use the following type:
type NumericRange<
start extends number,
end extends number,
arr extends unknown[] = [],
acc extends number = never,

= arr['length'] extends end
? acc | start | end
: NumericRange<start, end, [...arr, 1], arr[start] extends undefined ? acc : acc | arr['length']>;

type MyRange = NumericRange<1, 50>;

Very nice !! That's exactly what I need, but there is a problem with negative values :/ :
* if start = -a and end > 0, there is no values in the generated type for the interval ]-a; 0].

* if start = -a and end = -b with -a < -b, there is an error
I will see if it can be fixed.

Also it only goes up to 999. Error on 1000.

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Proposal: Interval Types / Inequality Types #43505

📃 Goals / Motivation

Non-Goals

Definitions

Syntax

Semantics

Assignability

Control-Flow

Union and Intersection Types

Subject for discussion: Handling of `(>1|2|3)`

The case of `(>=1) | (<1)`

Discriminated Unions via Interval Boundary Types?

Normalization of Unions and Intersections

Normalizing `A | B`:

Normalizing `A & B`:

Assertions

Widening and Arithmetics

Loops

Enum Interaction

Generics

💻 Use-Cases

✅ Viability Checklist

🔍 Search Terms / Keywords

12 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Proposal: Interval Types / Inequality Types #43505

Description

📃 Goals / Motivation

Non-Goals

Definitions

Syntax

Semantics

Assignability

Control-Flow

Union and Intersection Types

Subject for discussion: Handling of (>1|2|3)

The case of (>=1) | (<1)

Discriminated Unions via Interval Boundary Types?

Normalization of Unions and Intersections

Normalizing A | B:

Normalizing A & B:

Assertions

Widening and Arithmetics

Loops

Enum Interaction

Generics

💻 Use-Cases

✅ Viability Checklist

🔍 Search Terms / Keywords

Activity

nikeee commented on Apr 2, 2021

captain-kark commented on Apr 5, 2021

RubenVerg commented on Apr 18, 2021

Stevemoretz commented on Apr 22, 2021

Shinigami92 commented on Apr 22, 2021

nikeee commented on Apr 22, 2021

benrbray commented on Apr 26, 2021

tamias commented on Jun 4, 2021

nikeee commented on Jun 18, 2021

eczn commented on Jul 15, 2021

nikeee commented on Jul 15, 2021

eczn commented on Jul 16, 2021

12 remaining items

sebinsua commented on Oct 21, 2022

hyoretsu commented on Nov 1, 2022

nikeee commented on Nov 1, 2022

klavs commented on Nov 3, 2022

sebinsua commented on May 2, 2023

Gusarovv commented on Aug 21, 2023

goastler commented on Sep 4, 2023

vtgn commented on May 7, 2024

FrameMuse commented on Sep 17, 2024

vtgn commented on Sep 17, 2024

FrameMuse commented on Sep 17, 2024

vtgn commented on Sep 17, 2024

FrameMuse commented on Sep 18, 2024

vtgn commented on Sep 18, 2024

samal-rasmussen commented on Jan 28, 2026

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

Subject for discussion: Handling of `(>1|2|3)`

The case of `(>=1) | (<1)`

Normalizing `A | B`:

Normalizing `A & B`: