Skip to content

Conversation

@jack-williams
Copy link
Collaborator

Fixes #4260

Not sure if this behaviour is still desired anymore, but I thought I'd at least put this out there to try out.

I tried doing a fix that worked for generic types:

function id<T>(x: T): T {
  return x;
}

x<void>();

but things went horribly wrong, mostly because you have to defer the check until after instantiation and it messes with overload resolution. In the end it really didn't seem worth it.

@RyanCavanaugh
Copy link
Member

@typescript-bot test this

@typescript-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

typescript-bot commented Oct 2, 2018

Heya @RyanCavanaugh, I've started to run the extended test suite on this PR at f3b6eea. You can monitor the build here. It should now contribute to this PR's status checks.

@jack-williams
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@RyanCavanaugh There were some upstream changes that affected the error messages so I merged master to get the new baselines; I don’t know if this had any impact on the RWC. Not a huge fan of having intermediate broken commits, and a merge, in the history. Tomorrow I might reopen this with a new PR that has a tidy history.

@jack-williams jack-williams deleted the void-parameters-are-optional branch October 3, 2018 09:52
@jack-williams
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@RyanCavanaugh Closing in favour of #27522 (If I was better with git I could probably rebase through the merge commit, but sadly, I'm not). Please mark as irrelevant/invalid.

@microsoft microsoft locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 21, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Syntax suggestion: Ignore last void parameters

3 participants