Can we write declarations inline, inside JavaScript files, so we don't have to write extra .d.ts files?
If I write in plain JavaScript, I know I can currently place a sibling .d.ts file next to my .js file in order to type it for use in TypeScript.
Is it possible to write only a .js file and place the declarations in there instead of having separate .d.ts files?
I know currently we can write jsdoc-style comments, and get some typing, but it's fairly limited compared to actual TypeScript. I'd love to write normal declarations inside the .js files.
typescript type-declaration type-definition
asked Jan 1 at 3:50
trusktrtrusktr
17.1k31116162
add a comment |
If I write in plain JavaScript, I know I can currently place a sibling .d.ts file next to my .js file in order to type it for use in TypeScript.
Is it possible to write only a .js file and place the declarations in there instead of having separate .d.ts files?
I know currently we can write jsdoc-style comments, and get some typing, but it's fairly limited compared to actual TypeScript. I'd love to write normal declarations inside the .js files.
typescript type-declaration type-definition
asked Jan 1 at 3:50
trusktrtrusktr
17.1k31116162
add a comment |
If I write in plain JavaScript, I know I can currently place a sibling .d.ts file next to my .js file in order to type it for use in TypeScript.
Is it possible to write only a .js file and place the declarations in there instead of having separate .d.ts files?
I know currently we can write jsdoc-style comments, and get some typing, but it's fairly limited compared to actual TypeScript. I'd love to write normal declarations inside the .js files.
typescript type-declaration type-definition
asked Jan 1 at 3:50
trusktrtrusktr
17.1k31116162
If I write in plain JavaScript, I know I can currently place a sibling .d.ts file next to my .js file in order to type it for use in TypeScript.
Is it possible to write only a .js file and place the declarations in there instead of having separate .d.ts files?
I know currently we can write jsdoc-style comments, and get some typing, but it's fairly limited compared to actual TypeScript. I'd love to write normal declarations inside the .js files.
typescript type-declaration type-definition
typescript type-declaration type-definition
asked Jan 1 at 3:50
trusktrtrusktr
17.1k31116162
asked Jan 1 at 3:50
trusktrtrusktr
17.1k31116162
asked Jan 1 at 3:50
trusktrtrusktr
17.1k31116162
asked Jan 1 at 3:50
trusktrtrusktr
17.1k31116162
asked Jan 1 at 3:50
trusktrtrusktr
17.1k31116162
17.1k31116162
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Although the TypeScript is considering it, it's not possible as of now. Only *.ts files offer the full power of TypeScript.
You could, hypothetically, define all your modules in a single declaration file, but at this point, it will probably be easier to just use TypeScript instead of JavaScript.
If that's beyond your control, the only thing that comes to mind is creating a custom transformer with TypeScript API. Since type definitions are not valid JavaScript and using them inside a .js file would cause a syntax error, you would still need to put them in a comment.
answered Jan 1 at 4:01
Karol MajewskiKarol Majewski
3,491213
It's not out of my control, but I can do things in JS that are very hard to do in TypeScript. F.e., I'm still learning how to solve this one: stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400. I want to generate classes with private and protected members based on object literals. My package "lowclass" does this for runtime JS: github.com/trusktr/lowclass. So I thought, instead of trying to type the class factory in order to useClass()in a TS project, maybe I could just useClass()and then write simple type defs, as writing a class withprivateandprotectedmembers is easy.
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:42
In short, arguably figuring out how to do stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400 (with additional private and protected members) seems more difficult than just writing some JS with a simple accompanyingclassdeclaration. If they could live in the same file that'd be sweet!
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:49
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%2f53992901%2fcan-we-write-declarations-inline-inside-javascript-files-so-we-dont-have-to-w%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
Although the TypeScript is considering it, it's not possible as of now. Only *.ts files offer the full power of TypeScript.
You could, hypothetically, define all your modules in a single declaration file, but at this point, it will probably be easier to just use TypeScript instead of JavaScript.
If that's beyond your control, the only thing that comes to mind is creating a custom transformer with TypeScript API. Since type definitions are not valid JavaScript and using them inside a .js file would cause a syntax error, you would still need to put them in a comment.
answered Jan 1 at 4:01
Karol MajewskiKarol Majewski
3,491213
It's not out of my control, but I can do things in JS that are very hard to do in TypeScript. F.e., I'm still learning how to solve this one: stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400. I want to generate classes with private and protected members based on object literals. My package "lowclass" does this for runtime JS: github.com/trusktr/lowclass. So I thought, instead of trying to type the class factory in order to useClass()in a TS project, maybe I could just useClass()and then write simple type defs, as writing a class withprivateandprotectedmembers is easy.
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:42
In short, arguably figuring out how to do stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400 (with additional private and protected members) seems more difficult than just writing some JS with a simple accompanyingclassdeclaration. If they could live in the same file that'd be sweet!
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:49
add a comment |
Although the TypeScript is considering it, it's not possible as of now. Only *.ts files offer the full power of TypeScript.
You could, hypothetically, define all your modules in a single declaration file, but at this point, it will probably be easier to just use TypeScript instead of JavaScript.
If that's beyond your control, the only thing that comes to mind is creating a custom transformer with TypeScript API. Since type definitions are not valid JavaScript and using them inside a .js file would cause a syntax error, you would still need to put them in a comment.
answered Jan 1 at 4:01
Karol MajewskiKarol Majewski
3,491213
It's not out of my control, but I can do things in JS that are very hard to do in TypeScript. F.e., I'm still learning how to solve this one: stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400. I want to generate classes with private and protected members based on object literals. My package "lowclass" does this for runtime JS: github.com/trusktr/lowclass. So I thought, instead of trying to type the class factory in order to useClass()in a TS project, maybe I could just useClass()and then write simple type defs, as writing a class withprivateandprotectedmembers is easy.
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:42
In short, arguably figuring out how to do stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400 (with additional private and protected members) seems more difficult than just writing some JS with a simple accompanyingclassdeclaration. If they could live in the same file that'd be sweet!
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:49
add a comment |
Although the TypeScript is considering it, it's not possible as of now. Only *.ts files offer the full power of TypeScript.
You could, hypothetically, define all your modules in a single declaration file, but at this point, it will probably be easier to just use TypeScript instead of JavaScript.
If that's beyond your control, the only thing that comes to mind is creating a custom transformer with TypeScript API. Since type definitions are not valid JavaScript and using them inside a .js file would cause a syntax error, you would still need to put them in a comment.
answered Jan 1 at 4:01
Karol MajewskiKarol Majewski
3,491213
Although the TypeScript is considering it, it's not possible as of now. Only *.ts files offer the full power of TypeScript.
You could, hypothetically, define all your modules in a single declaration file, but at this point, it will probably be easier to just use TypeScript instead of JavaScript.
If that's beyond your control, the only thing that comes to mind is creating a custom transformer with TypeScript API. Since type definitions are not valid JavaScript and using them inside a .js file would cause a syntax error, you would still need to put them in a comment.
answered Jan 1 at 4:01
Karol MajewskiKarol Majewski
3,491213
edited Jan 4 at 7:38
answered Jan 1 at 4:01
Karol MajewskiKarol Majewski
3,491213
answered Jan 1 at 4:01
Karol MajewskiKarol Majewski
3,491213
answered Jan 1 at 4:01
Karol MajewskiKarol Majewski
3,491213
3,491213
It's not out of my control, but I can do things in JS that are very hard to do in TypeScript. F.e., I'm still learning how to solve this one: stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400. I want to generate classes with private and protected members based on object literals. My package "lowclass" does this for runtime JS: github.com/trusktr/lowclass. So I thought, instead of trying to type the class factory in order to useClass()in a TS project, maybe I could just useClass()and then write simple type defs, as writing a class withprivateandprotectedmembers is easy.
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:42
In short, arguably figuring out how to do stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400 (with additional private and protected members) seems more difficult than just writing some JS with a simple accompanyingclassdeclaration. If they could live in the same file that'd be sweet!
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:49
add a comment |
It's not out of my control, but I can do things in JS that are very hard to do in TypeScript. F.e., I'm still learning how to solve this one: stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400. I want to generate classes with private and protected members based on object literals. My package "lowclass" does this for runtime JS: github.com/trusktr/lowclass. So I thought, instead of trying to type the class factory in order to useClass()in a TS project, maybe I could just useClass()and then write simple type defs, as writing a class withprivateandprotectedmembers is easy.
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:42
In short, arguably figuring out how to do stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400 (with additional private and protected members) seems more difficult than just writing some JS with a simple accompanyingclassdeclaration. If they could live in the same file that'd be sweet!
– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:49
It's not out of my control, but I can do things in JS that are very hard to do in TypeScript. F.e., I'm still learning how to solve this one: stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400. I want to generate classes with private and protected members based on object literals. My package "lowclass" does this for runtime JS: github.com/trusktr/lowclass. So I thought, instead of trying to type the class factory in order to use
Class() in a TS project, maybe I could just use Class() and then write simple type defs, as writing a class with private and protected members is easy.– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:42
It's not out of my control, but I can do things in JS that are very hard to do in TypeScript. F.e., I'm still learning how to solve this one: stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400. I want to generate classes with private and protected members based on object literals. My package "lowclass" does this for runtime JS: github.com/trusktr/lowclass. So I thought, instead of trying to type the class factory in order to use
Class() in a TS project, maybe I could just use Class() and then write simple type defs, as writing a class with private and protected members is easy.– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:42
In short, arguably figuring out how to do stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400 (with additional private and protected members) seems more difficult than just writing some JS with a simple accompanying
class declaration. If they could live in the same file that'd be sweet!– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:49
In short, arguably figuring out how to do stackoverflow.com/questions/50899400 (with additional private and protected members) seems more difficult than just writing some JS with a simple accompanying
class declaration. If they could live in the same file that'd be sweet!– trusktr
Jan 2 at 6:49
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%2f53992901%2fcan-we-write-declarations-inline-inside-javascript-files-so-we-dont-have-to-w%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
