Should I use interfaces types for the function along with the parameter and return types?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
This is a function that can be used as the Geolocation API position callback:
const showPosition: PositionCallback = (position: Position): void => console.log(position);
With that PositionCallback, I'd like to know whether should I remove the parameter and return type, or not.
typescript
edited Nov 24 '18 at 14:48
Heretic Monkey
6,59063672
asked Nov 24 '18 at 7:09
João LucasJoão Lucas
428
add a comment |
This is a function that can be used as the Geolocation API position callback:
const showPosition: PositionCallback = (position: Position): void => console.log(position);
With that PositionCallback, I'd like to know whether should I remove the parameter and return type, or not.
typescript
edited Nov 24 '18 at 14:48
Heretic Monkey
6,59063672
asked Nov 24 '18 at 7:09
João LucasJoão Lucas
428
1
Yes: they're redundant. Or no, if you find the code more readable this way.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 7:25
add a comment |
This is a function that can be used as the Geolocation API position callback:
const showPosition: PositionCallback = (position: Position): void => console.log(position);
With that PositionCallback, I'd like to know whether should I remove the parameter and return type, or not.
typescript
edited Nov 24 '18 at 14:48
Heretic Monkey
6,59063672
asked Nov 24 '18 at 7:09
João LucasJoão Lucas
428
This is a function that can be used as the Geolocation API position callback:
const showPosition: PositionCallback = (position: Position): void => console.log(position);
With that PositionCallback, I'd like to know whether should I remove the parameter and return type, or not.
typescript
typescript
edited Nov 24 '18 at 14:48
Heretic Monkey
6,59063672
asked Nov 24 '18 at 7:09
João LucasJoão Lucas
428
edited Nov 24 '18 at 14:48
Heretic Monkey
6,59063672
asked Nov 24 '18 at 7:09
João LucasJoão Lucas
428
edited Nov 24 '18 at 14:48
Heretic Monkey
6,59063672
edited Nov 24 '18 at 14:48
Heretic Monkey
6,59063672
edited Nov 24 '18 at 14:48
Heretic Monkey
6,59063672
6,59063672
asked Nov 24 '18 at 7:09
João LucasJoão Lucas
428
asked Nov 24 '18 at 7:09
João LucasJoão Lucas
428
asked Nov 24 '18 at 7:09
João LucasJoão Lucas
428
428
1
Yes: they're redundant. Or no, if you find the code more readable this way.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 7:25
add a comment |
1
Yes: they're redundant. Or no, if you find the code more readable this way.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 7:25
1
1
Yes: they're redundant. Or no, if you find the code more readable this way.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 7:25
Yes: they're redundant. Or no, if you find the code more readable this way.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 7:25
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
They are redundant because the definition of PositionCallback specifies the types, so TypeScript is guaranteed to infer them for the right-hand side of the assignment.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 14:18
dimvardimvar
506513
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
I don't have a general rule for every case, but yes, I do sometimes keep the types for readability even if they're not required for type checking.
– dimvar
Nov 25 '18 at 4:59
add a comment |
It's a matter of style. The types are inferred so the compiler will be happy either way.
The advantage of keeping the PositionCallback type explicit is if the type changes in the future, you compiler will raise errors at all the points where you need to correct the type. Without it you won't get an error until you pass showPosition to something that expects a PositionCallback so it can take a bit longer to fix the code.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 19:26
matt helliwellmatt helliwell
1,6861016
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
So, would be better to remove the types for return and parameters, but not otherwise?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:49
1
@JoãoLucas I would definitely keep the PositionCallback type explicit so I get early compilations errors if something changes. I'd be less likely to keep the explicit types to the right of the equals as my IDE can show me the type if I really need it. However if was an API not being used much the app then I might make them explicit to help people along.
– matt helliwell
Nov 25 '18 at 9:31
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%2f53456003%2fshould-i-use-interfaces-types-for-the-function-along-with-the-parameter-and-retu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
They are redundant because the definition of PositionCallback specifies the types, so TypeScript is guaranteed to infer them for the right-hand side of the assignment.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 14:18
dimvardimvar
506513
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
I don't have a general rule for every case, but yes, I do sometimes keep the types for readability even if they're not required for type checking.
– dimvar
Nov 25 '18 at 4:59
add a comment |
They are redundant because the definition of PositionCallback specifies the types, so TypeScript is guaranteed to infer them for the right-hand side of the assignment.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 14:18
dimvardimvar
506513
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
I don't have a general rule for every case, but yes, I do sometimes keep the types for readability even if they're not required for type checking.
– dimvar
Nov 25 '18 at 4:59
add a comment |
They are redundant because the definition of PositionCallback specifies the types, so TypeScript is guaranteed to infer them for the right-hand side of the assignment.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 14:18
dimvardimvar
506513
They are redundant because the definition of PositionCallback specifies the types, so TypeScript is guaranteed to infer them for the right-hand side of the assignment.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 14:18
dimvardimvar
506513
answered Nov 24 '18 at 14:18
dimvardimvar
506513
answered Nov 24 '18 at 14:18
dimvardimvar
506513
answered Nov 24 '18 at 14:18
dimvardimvar
506513
506513
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
I don't have a general rule for every case, but yes, I do sometimes keep the types for readability even if they're not required for type checking.
– dimvar
Nov 25 '18 at 4:59
add a comment |
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
I don't have a general rule for every case, but yes, I do sometimes keep the types for readability even if they're not required for type checking.
– dimvar
Nov 25 '18 at 4:59
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
I don't have a general rule for every case, but yes, I do sometimes keep the types for readability even if they're not required for type checking.
– dimvar
Nov 25 '18 at 4:59
I don't have a general rule for every case, but yes, I do sometimes keep the types for readability even if they're not required for type checking.
– dimvar
Nov 25 '18 at 4:59
add a comment |
It's a matter of style. The types are inferred so the compiler will be happy either way.
The advantage of keeping the PositionCallback type explicit is if the type changes in the future, you compiler will raise errors at all the points where you need to correct the type. Without it you won't get an error until you pass showPosition to something that expects a PositionCallback so it can take a bit longer to fix the code.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 19:26
matt helliwellmatt helliwell
1,6861016
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
So, would be better to remove the types for return and parameters, but not otherwise?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:49
1
@JoãoLucas I would definitely keep the PositionCallback type explicit so I get early compilations errors if something changes. I'd be less likely to keep the explicit types to the right of the equals as my IDE can show me the type if I really need it. However if was an API not being used much the app then I might make them explicit to help people along.
– matt helliwell
Nov 25 '18 at 9:31
add a comment |
It's a matter of style. The types are inferred so the compiler will be happy either way.
The advantage of keeping the PositionCallback type explicit is if the type changes in the future, you compiler will raise errors at all the points where you need to correct the type. Without it you won't get an error until you pass showPosition to something that expects a PositionCallback so it can take a bit longer to fix the code.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 19:26
matt helliwellmatt helliwell
1,6861016
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
So, would be better to remove the types for return and parameters, but not otherwise?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:49
1
@JoãoLucas I would definitely keep the PositionCallback type explicit so I get early compilations errors if something changes. I'd be less likely to keep the explicit types to the right of the equals as my IDE can show me the type if I really need it. However if was an API not being used much the app then I might make them explicit to help people along.
– matt helliwell
Nov 25 '18 at 9:31
add a comment |
It's a matter of style. The types are inferred so the compiler will be happy either way.
The advantage of keeping the PositionCallback type explicit is if the type changes in the future, you compiler will raise errors at all the points where you need to correct the type. Without it you won't get an error until you pass showPosition to something that expects a PositionCallback so it can take a bit longer to fix the code.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 19:26
matt helliwellmatt helliwell
1,6861016
It's a matter of style. The types are inferred so the compiler will be happy either way.
The advantage of keeping the PositionCallback type explicit is if the type changes in the future, you compiler will raise errors at all the points where you need to correct the type. Without it you won't get an error until you pass showPosition to something that expects a PositionCallback so it can take a bit longer to fix the code.
answered Nov 24 '18 at 19:26
matt helliwellmatt helliwell
1,6861016
answered Nov 24 '18 at 19:26
matt helliwellmatt helliwell
1,6861016
answered Nov 24 '18 at 19:26
matt helliwellmatt helliwell
1,6861016
answered Nov 24 '18 at 19:26
matt helliwellmatt helliwell
1,6861016
1,6861016
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
So, would be better to remove the types for return and parameters, but not otherwise?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:49
1
@JoãoLucas I would definitely keep the PositionCallback type explicit so I get early compilations errors if something changes. I'd be less likely to keep the explicit types to the right of the equals as my IDE can show me the type if I really need it. However if was an API not being used much the app then I might make them explicit to help people along.
– matt helliwell
Nov 25 '18 at 9:31
add a comment |
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
So, would be better to remove the types for return and parameters, but not otherwise?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:49
1
@JoãoLucas I would definitely keep the PositionCallback type explicit so I get early compilations errors if something changes. I'd be less likely to keep the explicit types to the right of the equals as my IDE can show me the type if I really need it. However if was an API not being used much the app then I might make them explicit to help people along.
– matt helliwell
Nov 25 '18 at 9:31
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
Would you still use the return and parameters types, even though you know it is redundant, just to improve readability?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:47
So, would be better to remove the types for return and parameters, but not otherwise?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:49
So, would be better to remove the types for return and parameters, but not otherwise?
– João Lucas
Nov 25 '18 at 0:49
1
1
@JoãoLucas I would definitely keep the PositionCallback type explicit so I get early compilations errors if something changes. I'd be less likely to keep the explicit types to the right of the equals as my IDE can show me the type if I really need it. However if was an API not being used much the app then I might make them explicit to help people along.
– matt helliwell
Nov 25 '18 at 9:31
@JoãoLucas I would definitely keep the PositionCallback type explicit so I get early compilations errors if something changes. I'd be less likely to keep the explicit types to the right of the equals as my IDE can show me the type if I really need it. However if was an API not being used much the app then I might make them explicit to help people along.
– matt helliwell
Nov 25 '18 at 9:31
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%2f53456003%2fshould-i-use-interfaces-types-for-the-function-along-with-the-parameter-and-retu%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
1
Yes: they're redundant. Or no, if you find the code more readable this way.
– JB Nizet
Nov 24 '18 at 7:25