add a flag to disable () => void being subtype of () => a

[zpdDG4gta8XKpMCd]

sometimes assuming that the result of a function might be ignored isn't safe, consider adding a flag that would disable such assumptions

followup of #8581

[RyanCavanaugh]

Would we also ban function calls in expression statements unless those functions are void?

e.g. I imagine you have this problem

function doSomething(): Promise<number>;

// BUG
doSomething();

[zpdDG4gta8XKpMCd]

yes, you are right, expression statements other than void are a major pain

[zpdDG4gta8XKpMCd]

wish there was a flag that would require the void operator with them

[zpdDG4gta8XKpMCd]

unhandled Promise<r> (a result now or later) is a classic example, but it is also a misuse to ignore Optional<r> (a result or nothing) or Tried <r, e> (a result or an exception)

all in all TypeScript is clearly favoring OOP over FP being yet another mainstream languages with a low entry level

[jeffreymorlan]

There are a lot of functions with infrequently-useful return values. They can't be declared as returning void, since you sometimes want to use the return, but it would be quite burdensome to have to use the void operator whenever you don't. Node.prototype.appendChild comes to mind.

Whether a return value is "ignorable" or not isn't just determined by its type, either. People ignore the number setTimeout returns (a timer ID) all the time, but ignoring the number Math.floor returns, for example, can only be a bug:

var x = 3.14;
Math.floor(x);
console.log(x); // "Why isn't it 3?" ;)

So to properly detect bugs involving ignoring return values, the type system would have to distinguish between ignorable and unignorable return values, perhaps by intersection with void:

declare function setTimeout(...): number & void; // ignorable
declare function floor(...): number; // not ignorable

It's an interesting idea, but one the TypeScript people would probably reject.

[zpdDG4gta8XKpMCd]

People ignore the number setTimeout returns (a timer ID) this

if you are (like us) working on a serious UI heavy application with a possibility to cancel any long running opertaion you must never ignore it

for a jquery powered home page, sure go ahead

believe me the hassle of being exact about ignoring the return value is nothing compared to the benefits of being able to catch more bugs at compile time, if you value the quality and your time

this all comes down to an old idea of making typescript stricter to ones who needs it (minority): #274

[mhegazy]

is this the same as #8240?

[zpdDG4gta8XKpMCd]

it's about rephrasing the last line in 3.11.3 Subtypes and Supertypes

Instad:

the result type of M is Void, or the result type of N is a subtype of that of M.

Should be:

the result type of N is a subtype of that of M.

[mhegazy]

I will bring it up for discussion. though I do nothing think we should be adding flags to change the behavior of the type system, unless it is a transitional phase (e.g. noImplictAny, strictNullChecks, etc..).