Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Record.get() with optional NSV (TypeScript) #1463

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Closed
dinony opened this issue Dec 19, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

Record.get() with optional NSV (TypeScript) #1463

dinony opened this issue Dec 19, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@dinony
Copy link

dinony commented Dec 19, 2017 •
edited
Loading

I'm using v4.0.0-rc.9 with TypeScript.
I wonder why there is no get method in the Record interface without the NSV value.
It results in a lot of .get('..', null) calls. Since I know that there is already a value, given that a record factory already enforces that a value is always present for all keys, it seems unnecessary.
@remi-blaise
Copy link

I encounter the same issue.

remi-blaise added a commit to remi-blaise/immutable-js that referenced this issue Dec 31, 2017
@remi-blaise
Improve Typescript support for Record
db2a6cf 
* Make NSV optional in Record.get method

Fixes immutable-js#1463

* Update documentation
@remi-blaise remi-blaise mentioned this issue Dec 31, 2017
Closed
remi-blaise added a commit to remi-blaise/immutable-js that referenced this issue Dec 31, 2017
@remi-blaise
Improve Typescript support for Record
acd6ef5 
* Make NSV optional in Record.get method

Fixes immutable-js#1463

* Update documentation
@develra
Copy link

develra commented Feb 5, 2018

Woo! I could also use this.

@leidegre
Copy link
Contributor

leidegre commented Mar 18, 2018 •
edited
Loading

It's probably a typo, the get function is quite redundant if you have a record type. You would do record.prop or record[prop] over record.get('prop', undefined). Maybe there are some optimizations I'm not aware of with respect to the Record type that makes this necessary but other than that, a Record is like a specialized Map so, the interface shouldn't really be different.

**Edit: ** of course I was wrong, see #1135

@asazernik asazernik mentioned this issue Apr 20, 2018
Merged
@lawrencezemour
Copy link

I'm glad that this was merged, ideally could you please release a new version with this fix? That would be awesome!

Also, it seems that the type for Record should allow direct access to properties, right?

@Methuselah96 Methuselah96 mentioned this issue Oct 17, 2020
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@leidegre @Methuselah96 @dinony @develra @remi-blaise @lawrencezemour