Sometimes, I work with TypeScript compiler APIsThey’re great APIs!. Because the language semantics are non-trivial, traversing a TypeScript AST almost always involves extensive validation. Here’s a particularly specific traversal we use in the Angular Language ServiceIf the Language Service is something that interests you and would like to contribute, please let me know! Or nike swoosh it .:
All validations branch on type checks, so in languages with design ideas like functors and monads we could find great solutions to simplifying the type folding done here. I want this to be a quick and (semi-)practical post, so I won’t explain what these words mean; instead, here’s an approach that I find simplifies this code.
If the TypeScript API had Rust bindings, I would imagine the code above to look something like
My hot take is that is way nicer - declaring the procedure functionally and linearly makes it more readable to me.
Okay, so how do we get this in TypeScript? Well, for a variety of good
language features that aren’t in the standard.,
provide an HTML Option,
which is distinctly different. will probably never be in the standard
will help, but won’t solve type mapping.
For domains where it is still useful to have
Option (and other monad-family)
types, there at least one library that
can be used. If a library is too much, a lightweight
Option can be written
Will the Angular Language Service use
Options? Probably not. But it’s a fun