We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Hi,
I have just upgraded to the latest version and the type definition for Point has changed to a union which is not helpful.
Point
type Point = { x: number; y: number } | [number, number];
For every union that is created, I have to use type narrowing to determine what it is if the inference cannot work it out.
It was perfect before:
type Point = { x: number; y: number }
I would have a new type for the tuple.
Would you be open to a PR that reverted this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Points can be defined as object or array. The previous version didn't cover both cases.
Sorry, something went wrong.
I've have already created a PR #67 to tackle this issue a few weeks ago.
@formatlos sir, that is the correct answer. Bravo!
PR 67 has been merged and released with version 2.3.0. I hope that it helps ;)
No branches or pull requests
Hi,
I have just upgraded to the latest version and the type definition for
Point
has changed to a union which is not helpful.type Point = { x: number; y: number } | [number, number];
For every union that is created, I have to use type narrowing to determine what it is if the inference cannot work it out.
It was perfect before:
type Point = { x: number; y: number }
I would have a new type for the tuple.
Would you be open to a PR that reverted this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: