This is completely valid but I still do think not being able to annotate literals to dictionary keys is a flaw and that it should get implemented
2 Likes
As I said in my first post, primitive dictionary annotations aren’t really meant for that. They are simply used to denote a common key and value type that is the same through out the entire table, whereas the type of annotation I proposed is exactly meant for that where a common key or value type may or may not be present.
Edit: keep in mind that literals are not valid key types anyways, they are polymorphic unless collapsed into a certain state, therefore are not hashable.
1 Like
Sounds good.
Hope this gets fixed.
I suppose ForeverHD can mark your post as the solution now as this really isn’t an issue solvable by us users.
1 Like
Those are valid points, do you think annotating Literals to primitive dict keys should be a thing?
It would allow for the following aswell (im aware this isn’t very useful)
type someDict<UnionOfLiteralKeys> = {[UnionOfLiteralKeys]: someType}
1 Like
I personally don’t think it should be a thing as simply denoting each possible key literal as a different key and assigning the appropriate type to it does the job pretty well, and in my opinion would be a lot more readable than this.
2 Likes