Allow specifying interface implements clauses for the static side of classes

## Search Terms class static side syntax interface type expression ## Suggestion Currently, you can only specify the static side interface of a class with a declaration. From [the handbook](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/interfaces.html#difference-between-the-static-and-instance-sides-of-classes): ```ts const Clock: ClockConstructor = class Clock implements ClockInterface { constructor(h: number, m: number) {} tick() { console.log("beep beep"); } } ``` When I first wanted to do this (before looking at the docs), I tried to do it in this fashion: ```ts class Clock: ClockConstructor implements ClockInterface { ... } ``` And I was surprised to see that it didn't work. My proposal is to make this a valid syntax as it's more intuitive and understandable. I believe that forcing class expressions conflicts with TypeScript's design goals: >5. Produce a language that is composable and easy to reason about. Why use a class expression when there is no need for it? Why change your actual JavaScript logic for something that exists only in TypeScript and not in your production code. ## Use Cases Anywhere you need to set the interface of the static side of a class without having a need to specify it as an expression. ## Examples Take the example from the playground: ```ts interface ClockConstructor { new (hour: number, minute: number); } interface ClockInterface { tick(); } class Clock: ClockConstructor implements ClockInterface { construct

Posted by yandodov on Oct 9, 2019, 7:40 AM

Tags

• github (Other)

Related issues

• struct's lifetime requirements can be bypassed via covariant field assignment
• Proposal to Reorganize the Moderation Team and Review Moderation Policies
• Progressive FPS degradation appears to be related to dota2.com — blocking the domain prevents the performance loss
• proposal: container/...: generic collection types
• Better Custom Endpoint BYOK
• A concrete policy for backward compatibility until Godot 5.0