Separately check ternary branches for assignability

[kirkwaiblinger]

🔍 Search Terms

ternary, conditional expression, recursion,

✅ Viability Checklist

• This wouldn't be a breaking change in existing TypeScript/JavaScript code
• This wouldn't change the runtime behavior of existing JavaScript code
• This could be implemented without emitting different JS based on the types of the expressions
• This isn't a runtime feature (e.g. library functionality, non-ECMAScript syntax with JavaScript output, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
• This isn't a request to add a new utility type: https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/No-New-Utility-Types
• This feature would agree with the rest of our Design Goals: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/wiki/TypeScript-Design-Goals

⭐ Suggestion

I propose that the following code should error

declare const b: boolean;
declare const a: any;
const s: string = b ? a : 42;

because number is not assignable to string.

This is already the case for the equivalent return statement "assignment", as of #56941.

function foo(b: boolean, a: any): string {
  return b ? a : 42
}

So I think it would make sense to be consistent.

📃 Motivating Example

My real world code looked something like this

declare const x: unknown;
const s: string = x != null ? (x as any).prop : undefined

Another related example, is that this code should be an error

declare const a: any;
const s: string = a ?? 24;

Which relates to #51665 (comment), where an error should/would occur if the RHS of the ?? were checked separately.

💻 Use Cases

1. What do you want to use this for?
   • Making less errors
2. What shortcomings exist with current approaches?
   • TS lets me make errors
3. What workarounds are you using in the meantime?
   • being sad
   • avoiding any as much as possible

[MartinJohns]

Duplicate of #31518.

[kirkwaiblinger]

Duplicate of #31518.

Gotcha 👍 Would just say that the only difference with this issue is that the context has now changed, due to #56941.

[typescript-bot]

This issue has been marked as "Duplicate" and has seen no recent activity. It has been automatically closed for house-keeping purposes.