打字稿推断执行具有相同参数签名的可选函数参数的高阶函数的类型

Question

Let's say I have a function that takes two functions f and g as arguments and returns a function that executes f and g and returns an object with the results. I also want to enforce that f and g have the same signature. This is easy enough with conditional types:

type ArgumentTypes<F extends Function> = F extends (...args: infer A) => any ? A : never;
function functionPair<
    F extends (...args: any[]) => any,
    G extends (...args: ArgumentTypes<F>) => any
>
(f: F, g: G): (...args: ArgumentTypes<F>) => { f: ReturnType<F>, g: ReturnType<G> }
{
    return (...args: ArgumentTypes<F>) => ({ f: f(...args), g: g(...args) });
}

functionPair((foo: string) => foo, (bar: number) => bar); // Error, incompatible signatures, as expected
functionPair((foo: string) => foo, (bar: string) => bar.length); // (foo: string) => { f: string; g: number; }, as expected

Now, what if I want to make f and g optional , and have the shape of the returned object change as a result? That is, if f or g is undefined , their key should be missing from the resulting object:

functionPair(); // Should be () => {}
functionPair(undefined, undefined); // Should be () => {}
functionPair((foo: string) => foo); // Should be (foo: string) => { f: string }
functionPair(undefined, (bar: string) => foo.length); // Should be (bar: string) => { g: number }
functionPair((foo: string) => foo, (bar: string) => foo.length); // Should be (foo: string) => { f: string, g: number }, as before

I've been trying to accomplish this with conditional types, but I'm having some trouble with conditionally enforcing the shape of the resulting function. Here's what I have so far (strict null checks are off):

function functionPair<
    A extends F extends undefined ? G extends undefined ? [] : ArgumentTypes<G> : ArgumentTypes<F>,
    F extends (...args: any[]) => any = undefined,
    G extends F extends undefined ? (...args: any[]) => any : (...args: ArgumentTypes<F>) => any = undefined
>
(f?: F, g?: G): (...args: A) =>
    F extends undefined
    ? G extends undefined ? {} : { g: ReturnType<G> }
    : G extends undefined ? { f: ReturnType<F> } : { f: ReturnType<F>, g: ReturnType<G> }
{ /* implementation... */ }

const a = functionPair(); // () => {}, as expected
const b = functionPair((foo: string) => foo); // (foo: string) => { f: string; }, as expected
const c = functionPair((foo: string) => foo, (bar: number) => bar); // Error, incompatible signatures, as expected
const d = functionPair((foo: string) => foo, (bar: string) => bar.length); // (foo: string) => { f: string; g: number; }, as expected

const e = functionPair(undefined, undefined); // INCORRECT! Expected () => {}, got (...args: unknown[] | []) => {} | { f: any; } | { g: any; } | { f: any; g: any; }
const f = functionPair(undefined, (bar: string) => bar.length); // INCORRECT! Expected (bar: string) => { g: number; } but got (...args: unknown[] | [string]) => { g: number; } | { f: any; g: number; }

---

By the way, I know that this is technically possible with overloads, as below, but I'd really like to understand how to do it without them.

function functionPairOverloaded(): () => {}
function functionPairOverloaded(f: undefined, g: undefined): () => {}
function functionPairOverloaded<F extends (...args: any[]) => any>(f: F): (...args: ArgumentTypes<F>) => { f: ReturnType<F> }
function functionPairOverloaded<G extends (...args: any[]) => any>(f: undefined, g: G): (...args: ArgumentTypes<G>) => { g: ReturnType<G> }
function functionPairOverloaded<F extends (...args: any[]) => any, G extends (...args: ArgumentTypes<F>) => any>(f: F, g: G): (...args: ArgumentTypes<F>) => { f: ReturnType<F>, g: ReturnType<G> }
function functionPairOverloaded<F extends (...args: any[]) => any, G extends (...args: any[]) => any>(f?: F, g?: G) { /* implementation... */ }

Answer 1

Assuming you have --strictNullChecks turned on, I guess I'd do it this way:

type Fun = (...args: any[]) => any;
type FunFrom<F, G> = F extends Fun ? F : G extends Fun ? G : () => {};
type IfFun<F, T> = F extends Fun ? T : never;
type Ret<T> = T extends (...args: any[]) => infer R ? R : never

declare function functionPair<
  F extends Fun | undefined = undefined,
  G extends ((...args: (F extends Fun ? Parameters<F> : any[])) => any) 
    | undefined = undefined
>(
  f?: F, 
  g?: G
): (...args: Parameters<FunFrom<F, G>>) => {
  [K in IfFun<F, 'f'> | IfFun<G, 'g'>]: K extends 'f' ? Ret<F> : Ret<G> 
};

That's fairly ugly, but it does give you the behavior you're looking for:

const a = functionPair(); // () => {}, as expected
const b = functionPair((foo: string) => foo); // (foo: string) => { f: string; }, as expected
const c = functionPair((foo: string) => foo, (bar: number) => bar); // Error, incompatible signatures, as expected
const d = functionPair((foo: string) => foo, (bar: string) => bar.length); // (foo: string) => { f: string; g: number; }, as expected
const e = functionPair(undefined, undefined); // () => {}, as expected
const f = functionPair(undefined, (bar: string) => bar.length); // (bar: string) => { g: number; }, as expected

I decided to go with just two type parameters F and G and instead of A use Parameters<FunFrom<F, G>> . Note that Parameters is a built-in type function similar to your ArgumentTypes .

Also, for the return type of the returned function I do a somewhat ugly mapped type. I first was planning to do something like IfFun<F, {f: Ret<F>}> & IfFun<G, {g: Ret<G>}> , which is (I believe) more understandable, but the resulting type {f: X, g: Y} is nicer than the intersection {f: X} & {g: Y} .

Anyway, hope that helps. Good luck!

---

If you want to be able to turn --strictNullChecks off, then the definitions get even hairier:

type Fun = (...args: any[]) => any;
type AsFun<F> = [F] extends [Fun] ? F : never
type FunFrom<F, G> = AsFun<IfFun<F, F, IfFun<G, G, () => {}>>>;
type IfFun<F, Y, N=never> = F extends undefined ? N : 
  0 extends (1 & F) ? N : F extends Fun ? Y : N;
type Ret<T> = T extends (...args: any[]) => infer R ? R : never

declare function functionPair<
  F extends Fun | undefined = undefined,
  G extends ((...args: IfFun<F, Parameters<F>, any[]>) => any)
  | undefined = undefined
  >(
    f?: F,
    g?: G
  ): (...args: Parameters<FunFrom<F, G>>) => {
    [K in IfFun<F, 'f'> | IfFun<G, 'g'>]: K extends 'f' ? Ret<F> : Ret<G>
  };

The difference is that IfFun<> needs to be able to distinguish functions from undefined and any , both of which pop up in unfortunate places when you turn off --strictNullChecks . That's because undefined extends Function ? true : false undefined extends Function ? true : false starts returning true , and any starts getting inferred when you pass the manual undefined value into the functions. Distinguishing undefined is reasonably straightforward since Function extends undefined ? true : false Function extends undefined ? true : false is still false , but distinguishing any is annoying and involves some funny business .

Good luck again!