Mixed types checker function to allow calling function with specific type
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
I am basically trying to create "checker" function and based on the result of that function, call another function. This another function can only accept single type. The checker function should "filter" unwanted types.
Here is an example:
class A {}
class B {}
const checkB = (entity: A | B): boolean => {
return (entity instanceof B)
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (checkB(entity)) {
execute(entity)
}
}
const a = new A()
const b = new B()
start(a)
start(b)
However Flowtype does not like this and returns this error:
execute(entity)
^ Cannot call `execute` with `entity` bound to `b` because `A` [1] is incompatible with `B` [2].
References:
15: const start = (entity: A | B) => {
^ [1]
11: const execute = (b: B) => {
^ [2]
I was wondering if one can somehow convince flow to work this way. Link to Flowtype REPL:
https://flow.org/try/#0PTAEAEDMBsHsHcBQiDG0CGBnToCCoBvAX2TSxwCFCTVYA7TAF1BQAsBTFAayoF5QAFOzqMAlowCeALjygAPqAoBKGQCNYsaO3R1QvAHyFEoUACd2jAK6ndQkeImhRDRjpTtYkRUsQ0U9JlB2AA9OS0Z2PUFVGWU9QwJjFgDNdgA6OABzAQByELCIgBMcnz8A5iZ0U2Z+OzFJGXwFOIMjE1EvATZOHjqHJSU2kyDQlHD2PskfExIyl1B0KLp2eDwBH3951SWVxXXkSuqBdB9DxgFVHyA
EDIT: My environment is set up with Flow v. 0.72.0
but as you can see in the REPL it doesn't work with 0.86.0
either.
Update Nov 26 2018:
There seems to be undocumented %checks
annotation that will work that way: https://github.com/facebook/flow/issues/4723#issuecomment-325157852
// @flow
class A {}
class B {}
const checkB = (entity: A | B): boolean %checks => {
return (entity instanceof B)
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (checkB(entity)) {
execute(entity)
}
}
const a = new A()
const b = new B()
start(a)
start(b)
This doesn't throw any more errors. However there are some issues with this:
- does not work if the
checkB
function is in different module / file - does not work with every version of Flow (yes, I'm using older Flow version because of reasons, the code base is pretty large and currently cannot be changed quickly to upgrade to newer Flow version)
- does not work on class methods (which is actually something I'd need)
- since it's not documented, I'm a bit skeptic on using it, they might as well remove it later on and I'd be where I started again
javascript flowtype
add a comment |
I am basically trying to create "checker" function and based on the result of that function, call another function. This another function can only accept single type. The checker function should "filter" unwanted types.
Here is an example:
class A {}
class B {}
const checkB = (entity: A | B): boolean => {
return (entity instanceof B)
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (checkB(entity)) {
execute(entity)
}
}
const a = new A()
const b = new B()
start(a)
start(b)
However Flowtype does not like this and returns this error:
execute(entity)
^ Cannot call `execute` with `entity` bound to `b` because `A` [1] is incompatible with `B` [2].
References:
15: const start = (entity: A | B) => {
^ [1]
11: const execute = (b: B) => {
^ [2]
I was wondering if one can somehow convince flow to work this way. Link to Flowtype REPL:
https://flow.org/try/#0PTAEAEDMBsHsHcBQiDG0CGBnToCCoBvAX2TSxwCFCTVYA7TAF1BQAsBTFAayoF5QAFOzqMAlowCeALjygAPqAoBKGQCNYsaO3R1QvAHyFEoUACd2jAK6ndQkeImhRDRjpTtYkRUsQ0U9JlB2AA9OS0Z2PUFVGWU9QwJjFgDNdgA6OABzAQByELCIgBMcnz8A5iZ0U2Z+OzFJGXwFOIMjE1EvATZOHjqHJSU2kyDQlHD2PskfExIyl1B0KLp2eDwBH3951SWVxXXkSuqBdB9DxgFVHyA
EDIT: My environment is set up with Flow v. 0.72.0
but as you can see in the REPL it doesn't work with 0.86.0
either.
Update Nov 26 2018:
There seems to be undocumented %checks
annotation that will work that way: https://github.com/facebook/flow/issues/4723#issuecomment-325157852
// @flow
class A {}
class B {}
const checkB = (entity: A | B): boolean %checks => {
return (entity instanceof B)
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (checkB(entity)) {
execute(entity)
}
}
const a = new A()
const b = new B()
start(a)
start(b)
This doesn't throw any more errors. However there are some issues with this:
- does not work if the
checkB
function is in different module / file - does not work with every version of Flow (yes, I'm using older Flow version because of reasons, the code base is pretty large and currently cannot be changed quickly to upgrade to newer Flow version)
- does not work on class methods (which is actually something I'd need)
- since it's not documented, I'm a bit skeptic on using it, they might as well remove it later on and I'd be where I started again
javascript flowtype
add a comment |
I am basically trying to create "checker" function and based on the result of that function, call another function. This another function can only accept single type. The checker function should "filter" unwanted types.
Here is an example:
class A {}
class B {}
const checkB = (entity: A | B): boolean => {
return (entity instanceof B)
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (checkB(entity)) {
execute(entity)
}
}
const a = new A()
const b = new B()
start(a)
start(b)
However Flowtype does not like this and returns this error:
execute(entity)
^ Cannot call `execute` with `entity` bound to `b` because `A` [1] is incompatible with `B` [2].
References:
15: const start = (entity: A | B) => {
^ [1]
11: const execute = (b: B) => {
^ [2]
I was wondering if one can somehow convince flow to work this way. Link to Flowtype REPL:
https://flow.org/try/#0PTAEAEDMBsHsHcBQiDG0CGBnToCCoBvAX2TSxwCFCTVYA7TAF1BQAsBTFAayoF5QAFOzqMAlowCeALjygAPqAoBKGQCNYsaO3R1QvAHyFEoUACd2jAK6ndQkeImhRDRjpTtYkRUsQ0U9JlB2AA9OS0Z2PUFVGWU9QwJjFgDNdgA6OABzAQByELCIgBMcnz8A5iZ0U2Z+OzFJGXwFOIMjE1EvATZOHjqHJSU2kyDQlHD2PskfExIyl1B0KLp2eDwBH3951SWVxXXkSuqBdB9DxgFVHyA
EDIT: My environment is set up with Flow v. 0.72.0
but as you can see in the REPL it doesn't work with 0.86.0
either.
Update Nov 26 2018:
There seems to be undocumented %checks
annotation that will work that way: https://github.com/facebook/flow/issues/4723#issuecomment-325157852
// @flow
class A {}
class B {}
const checkB = (entity: A | B): boolean %checks => {
return (entity instanceof B)
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (checkB(entity)) {
execute(entity)
}
}
const a = new A()
const b = new B()
start(a)
start(b)
This doesn't throw any more errors. However there are some issues with this:
- does not work if the
checkB
function is in different module / file - does not work with every version of Flow (yes, I'm using older Flow version because of reasons, the code base is pretty large and currently cannot be changed quickly to upgrade to newer Flow version)
- does not work on class methods (which is actually something I'd need)
- since it's not documented, I'm a bit skeptic on using it, they might as well remove it later on and I'd be where I started again
javascript flowtype
I am basically trying to create "checker" function and based on the result of that function, call another function. This another function can only accept single type. The checker function should "filter" unwanted types.
Here is an example:
class A {}
class B {}
const checkB = (entity: A | B): boolean => {
return (entity instanceof B)
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (checkB(entity)) {
execute(entity)
}
}
const a = new A()
const b = new B()
start(a)
start(b)
However Flowtype does not like this and returns this error:
execute(entity)
^ Cannot call `execute` with `entity` bound to `b` because `A` [1] is incompatible with `B` [2].
References:
15: const start = (entity: A | B) => {
^ [1]
11: const execute = (b: B) => {
^ [2]
I was wondering if one can somehow convince flow to work this way. Link to Flowtype REPL:
https://flow.org/try/#0PTAEAEDMBsHsHcBQiDG0CGBnToCCoBvAX2TSxwCFCTVYA7TAF1BQAsBTFAayoF5QAFOzqMAlowCeALjygAPqAoBKGQCNYsaO3R1QvAHyFEoUACd2jAK6ndQkeImhRDRjpTtYkRUsQ0U9JlB2AA9OS0Z2PUFVGWU9QwJjFgDNdgA6OABzAQByELCIgBMcnz8A5iZ0U2Z+OzFJGXwFOIMjE1EvATZOHjqHJSU2kyDQlHD2PskfExIyl1B0KLp2eDwBH3951SWVxXXkSuqBdB9DxgFVHyA
EDIT: My environment is set up with Flow v. 0.72.0
but as you can see in the REPL it doesn't work with 0.86.0
either.
Update Nov 26 2018:
There seems to be undocumented %checks
annotation that will work that way: https://github.com/facebook/flow/issues/4723#issuecomment-325157852
// @flow
class A {}
class B {}
const checkB = (entity: A | B): boolean %checks => {
return (entity instanceof B)
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (checkB(entity)) {
execute(entity)
}
}
const a = new A()
const b = new B()
start(a)
start(b)
This doesn't throw any more errors. However there are some issues with this:
- does not work if the
checkB
function is in different module / file - does not work with every version of Flow (yes, I'm using older Flow version because of reasons, the code base is pretty large and currently cannot be changed quickly to upgrade to newer Flow version)
- does not work on class methods (which is actually something I'd need)
- since it's not documented, I'm a bit skeptic on using it, they might as well remove it later on and I'd be where I started again
javascript flowtype
javascript flowtype
edited Nov 26 '18 at 14:39
user3056783
asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:29
user3056783user3056783
5061724
5061724
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Looks like it's this opened issue (consider add your case too :)).
However, it works well if you delete method checkB
and do refinements exactly in start
:
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (entity instanceof B) {
execute(entity)
}
}
If you have more complex type refinements and need it to be extracted into separate method, you can change checkB
into getB
, as null refinements seems to works well:
const getB = (entity: A | B): ?B => {
return (entity instanceof B) ? entity : null;
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
const b = getB(entity);
if (b) {
execute(b)
}
}
I hear you, however the example I posted above is greatly simplified application code that I have to maintain and unfortunately this does not solve the problem in the way I want / need.
– user3056783
Nov 26 '18 at 14:35
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53447620%2fmixed-types-checker-function-to-allow-calling-function-with-specific-type%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Looks like it's this opened issue (consider add your case too :)).
However, it works well if you delete method checkB
and do refinements exactly in start
:
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (entity instanceof B) {
execute(entity)
}
}
If you have more complex type refinements and need it to be extracted into separate method, you can change checkB
into getB
, as null refinements seems to works well:
const getB = (entity: A | B): ?B => {
return (entity instanceof B) ? entity : null;
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
const b = getB(entity);
if (b) {
execute(b)
}
}
I hear you, however the example I posted above is greatly simplified application code that I have to maintain and unfortunately this does not solve the problem in the way I want / need.
– user3056783
Nov 26 '18 at 14:35
add a comment |
Looks like it's this opened issue (consider add your case too :)).
However, it works well if you delete method checkB
and do refinements exactly in start
:
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (entity instanceof B) {
execute(entity)
}
}
If you have more complex type refinements and need it to be extracted into separate method, you can change checkB
into getB
, as null refinements seems to works well:
const getB = (entity: A | B): ?B => {
return (entity instanceof B) ? entity : null;
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
const b = getB(entity);
if (b) {
execute(b)
}
}
I hear you, however the example I posted above is greatly simplified application code that I have to maintain and unfortunately this does not solve the problem in the way I want / need.
– user3056783
Nov 26 '18 at 14:35
add a comment |
Looks like it's this opened issue (consider add your case too :)).
However, it works well if you delete method checkB
and do refinements exactly in start
:
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (entity instanceof B) {
execute(entity)
}
}
If you have more complex type refinements and need it to be extracted into separate method, you can change checkB
into getB
, as null refinements seems to works well:
const getB = (entity: A | B): ?B => {
return (entity instanceof B) ? entity : null;
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
const b = getB(entity);
if (b) {
execute(b)
}
}
Looks like it's this opened issue (consider add your case too :)).
However, it works well if you delete method checkB
and do refinements exactly in start
:
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
if (entity instanceof B) {
execute(entity)
}
}
If you have more complex type refinements and need it to be extracted into separate method, you can change checkB
into getB
, as null refinements seems to works well:
const getB = (entity: A | B): ?B => {
return (entity instanceof B) ? entity : null;
}
const execute = (b: B) => {
console.log('executed')
}
const start = (entity: A | B) => {
const b = getB(entity);
if (b) {
execute(b)
}
}
answered Nov 24 '18 at 11:46
AlexAlex
3,553823
3,553823
I hear you, however the example I posted above is greatly simplified application code that I have to maintain and unfortunately this does not solve the problem in the way I want / need.
– user3056783
Nov 26 '18 at 14:35
add a comment |
I hear you, however the example I posted above is greatly simplified application code that I have to maintain and unfortunately this does not solve the problem in the way I want / need.
– user3056783
Nov 26 '18 at 14:35
I hear you, however the example I posted above is greatly simplified application code that I have to maintain and unfortunately this does not solve the problem in the way I want / need.
– user3056783
Nov 26 '18 at 14:35
I hear you, however the example I posted above is greatly simplified application code that I have to maintain and unfortunately this does not solve the problem in the way I want / need.
– user3056783
Nov 26 '18 at 14:35
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53447620%2fmixed-types-checker-function-to-allow-calling-function-with-specific-type%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown