T.constructor should be of type T

[LPGhatguy]

Given

class Example {
}

The current type of Example.constructor is Function, but I feel that it should be typeof Example instead. The use case for this is as follows:

I'd like to reference the current value of an overridden static property on the current class.

In TypeScript v1.5-beta, doing this requires:

class Example {
    static someProperty = "Hello, world!";

    constructor() {
        // Output overloaded value of someProperty, if it is overloaded.
        console.log(
            (<typeof Example>this.constructor).someProperty
        );
    }
}

class SubExample {
    static someProperty = "Overloaded! Hello world!";

    someMethod() {
        console.log(
            (<typeof SubExample>this.constructor).someProperty
        );
    }
}

After this proposal, the above block could be shortened to:

class Example {
    static someProperty = "Hello, world!";

    constructor() {
        // Output overloaded value of someProperty, if it is overloaded.
        console.log(
            this.constructor.someProperty
        );
    }
}

class SubExample {
    static someProperty = "Overloaded! Hello world!";

    someMethod() {
        console.log(
            this.constructor.someProperty
        );
    }
}

This removes a cast to the current class.

[kitsonk]

Also, for clarity, as discussed in #4356 it is logical based on the ES specification to strongly type .constructor property of an instance and the following is essentially equivalent valid ways of creating instances:

class Foo {
    foo() { console.log('bar'); }
}

let foo1 = new Foo();

let foo2 = new foo1.constructor();

[RyanCavanaugh]

Accepting PRs for this. Anyone interested? 😄

[weswigham]

I spoke with @ahejlsberg about this - we could type constructor fairly well just with a change to our lib.d.ts now that we have this types (in theory):

interface Constructor<T> {
  new (...args: any[]): T;
  prototype: T;
}

interface Object {
    constructor: Constructor<this>;
}

But! There are two issues - we don't instantiate this types on apparent type members (as in, anything on object) correctly right now, and there would be a performance impact in making every object have a this typed member (it's constructor member). Additionally, this method doesn't capture the arguments of the constructor of the class (or its static members), so it could stand to be improved.

[RyanCavanaugh]

Additionally, this method doesn't capture the arguments of the constructor of the class (or its static members),

This was a dealbreaker for us since it wouldn't even address the problem in the OP. Wiring it up in the compiler the same way we do prototype seems necessary.

[jbondc]

Can take a look, does

1. Removing from lib.d.ts:

interface Object {
    constructor: Function;

2. inferring/adding a "constructor" property/symbol with a type to the classType seem like the right thing to do?

[jbondc]

Nevermind, it's a bit more involved then I thought. Attempt here in case helpful:
master...jbondc:this.constructor

Think proper way involves changing ConstructorKeyword in getSymbolAtLocation()

[Arnavion]

As I mentioned in #5933, will this not be a breaking change for assigning object literals to class types?

class Foo {
    constructor(public prop: string) { }
}

var foo: Foo = { prop: "5" };

This is currently allowed, but with this issue fixed it should produce an error that the literal is missing the constructor property? If it didn't produce an error, then it would be allowed to call statics on Foo such as foo.constructor.bar() which would break if foo.constructor wasn't actually Foo.

[LPGhatguy]

Would this be possible to implement solely with the polymorphic this type that's a work in progress? Assuming typeof mechanics would work there as well, could the signature for Object.prototype.constructor be set to:

interface Object {
    constructor: typeof this;
}

[ahejlsberg]

The general problem we face here is that lots of valid JavaScript code has derived constructors that aren't proper subtypes of their base constructors. In other words, the derived constructors "violate" the substitution principle on the static side of the class. For example:

class Base {
    constructor() { }  // No parameters
}

class Derived {
    constructor(x: number, y: number) { }  // x and y are required parameters
}

var factory: typeof Base = Derived;  // Error, Derived constructor signature incompatible
var x = new factory();

If we were to add a strongly typed constructor property to every class, then it would become an error to declare the Derived class above (we'd get the same error for the constructor property that we get for the factory variable above). Effectively we'd require all derived classes to have constructors that are compatible with (i.e. substitutable for) the base constructor. That's simply not feasible, not to mention that it would be a massive breaking change.

In cases where you do want substitutability you can manually declare a "constructor" property. There's an example here. I'm not sure we can do much better than that.

[pocesar]

Well, since the constructor, per spec (and after typescript compilation) is always the defined in the prototype, I don't see why it shouldn't be strongly typed. If people are hacking their prototypes manually, let them typecast their code. this.constructor should be the class definition, and super.constructor the immediate super prototype definition, and so on.

Since non-typescript modules usually have their manual typings (through DefinitelyTyped), it's safe to rewrite their constructor there as needed (in case the module author did something silly like):

function Foo(){
}
Foo.prototype = {
   constructor: Foo,
   someMethod: function() {
   }
}

[RyanCavanaugh]

I don't understand what's going on in this thread. Need to take it back to the design meeting.

[TechQuery]

If someone wants to make it work with prettier (which removes the quotes), wrapping around [] does the trick:

class C {
    ['constructor']: typeof C;
}

As the new confused proposal "class fields as define properties" of ES2022 becomes TypeScript default behavior, we must write as following to avoid access-blocking to the prototype:

class C {
    declare ['constructor']: typeof C;
}

[hinell]

@TechQuery This issue didn't age well as I see. Now even more crowded, completely unnecessary keywords are needed. What a joke. This is going to break backwards compatibility again. This is crazy. I think TS needs to be replaced by more robust and sensible language.

[datvm]

Any workaround for annonymous class without manually giving it a name?

new class {

    static #init = false;

    constructor() {
        (this.constructor as ???).#init = true; // What to put in here?
    }

}();

[ljharb]

the workaround is to give it a name, since anonymous things hurt debugging anyways.

[hinell]

The workaround is to drop TypeScript altogehter. We need a better language. Read:

• TypeScript is 'not worth it' Svelte switches to JavaScript and JSDoc
• TS to JSDoc Conversion sveltejs/svelte#8569
• Turbo 8 is dropping TypeScript

[ShaMan123]

That should be a great concern and alarming to the TS team.
As well as this issue and the need to do horrible workarounds to do things that are considered the core scope of TS.
TS is there to make coding easier, not harder.
All the workarounds in this thread are too ugly, forgive me if that offends anyone.

[pinko-fowle]

(this.constructor as MyClass).myStaticMethod() is the workaround I've been using. Quite dislike it.

Here's an example use case:

var A = class {
        static answer(): any { return 42 };
        lifeUniverseEverything() { return (this.constructor as typeof A).answer() } // WORKAROUND HERE
}
var B = class extends A {
        static answer(){ return "6*9" }
}
console.log(`the answer to life the universe & everything is... ${(new B).lifeUniverseEverything()}`)
// => the answer to life the universe & everything is... 6*9

Being able to have virtual static methods is a super-powerful & super-useful capabillity! Wish it was better supported. Thanks, happy hacking folks.

[clshortfuse]

@pinko-fowle Note that doing so regenerates the entire class, with the equivalent of

{
  new (...args: any[]): {[K in key of CLASS]: CLASS[K]},
  [K in key of typeof CLASS]: typeof CLASS[K],
} & typeof CLASS;

That makes a really gigantic file when you generate types since it's duplicating every single key. The more you extend the worse it gets. Something like HTMLElement has 100s of properties.

[trusktr]

@Fryuni I can't get your example to work.

playground

[Fryuni]

@trusktr, there are three problems:

The first one is somewhat silly, but you need the export {} somewhere at the top level of the file for the declare global to work correctly. Don't ask me why, I never figured that one out.

Second, my solution cannot infer the type; just validate it. demonstration.

The last one I mentioned in this comment, when the class has no private instance members, any other class with a subset of the instance members will be assignable to it. It worked for us because all our classes do have private members. demonstration

[clshortfuse]

@trusktr If you're okay with not using native syntax for JS extends you can do this:

class TSConstructorFix {
  /**
   * @type {{
   * <T1 extends typeof TSConstructorFix, T2 extends T1, T3 extends (Base:T1) => T2>
   * (this: T1,customExtender: T3):
   *  ReturnType<T3>
   *      & {
   *          new(): {
   *              static(): {[K in keyof ReturnType<T3>]: ReturnType<T3>[K]}
   *          } & {
   *            [K in keyof InstanceType<ReturnType<T3>>]: InstanceType<ReturnType<T3>>[K]}
   *          }
   *      }
   * }}
   */
  static extend(customExtender) {
    // @ts-expect-error Can't cast T
    return customExtender(this);
  }

  static() {
    return this.constructor;
  }
}

const Test = TSConstructorFix.extend((Base) => class extends Base {
  static foo = 123;

  go() { return 0; }
});

const t = new Test();
t.static().foo;
t.go();

Playground link

That's basically a fork of how I've workaround this issue. I'm kinda used to that more declarative syntax now, personally.

Base class

Extension Example

[clshortfuse]

So this works...

class TSConstructorFix {
  /**
   * @type {{
   * <T1 extends typeof TSConstructorFix, T2 extends T1, T3 extends (Base:T1) => T2>
   * (this: T1,customExtender: T3):
   *  ReturnType<T3>
   *      & {
   *          new(...args: any[]): {
   *              constructor: {[K in keyof ReturnType<T3>]: ReturnType<T3>[K]}
   *          } & {
   *            [K in keyof InstanceType<ReturnType<T3>>]: InstanceType<ReturnType<T3>>[K]}
   *          }
   *      }
   * }}
   */
  static extend(customExtender) {
    // @ts-expect-error Can't cast T
    return customExtender(this);
  }
}

- class Test {
+ class Test extends TSConstructorFix.extend((Base) => class extends Base {
  static foo = 123;

  go() { return 0; }
- }
+ }) {}
const t = new Test();
t.constructor.foo += 4;
t.go();

If you're willing to add extends TSConstructorFix.extend((Base) => class extends Base after every class name and ]) { at the end (maybe a Regex). There's more probably some more coaxing of ConstructorParameters<T> left, but that's the main idea.

[trusktr]

@clshortfuse that'd be a fairly invasive change I think. Better to just const ctor = this.constructor as Foo in some few spots I think.

@Fryuni Thanks, got it! Btw, export {} not needed if you tack the export onto one of your actual classes (that's what I had in my example).

[teadrinker2015]

the workaround is to give it a name, since anonymous things hurt debugging anyways.

Considering calling your parents and your friends in their full names. It's more explicit.

[jwbth]

As the new confused proposal "class fields as define properties" of ES2022 becomes TypeScript default behavior, we must write as following to avoid access-blocking to the prototype:

class C {
    declare ['constructor']: typeof C;
}

Factors than neccesiate using declare include:

• having target set to es2020 or higher in tsconfig.json;
• having useDefineForClassFields set to true (e.g. this is done in the default configuration for Vue).

Setting useDefineForClassFields to false will make the code work without declare. Can't wouch it won't break anything else. See https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/2/classes.html#type-only-field-declarations for details.

[thodnev]

Could someone please add it to TS Milestones for one of the upcoming versions

The issue is open for 9 years. And it deserves being addressed. Brief Stackoverflow review shows devs even started using ClassName.method notation instead of this.constructor.method thus bringing Divergent Change code smell into their projects to simply satisfy the typing

The solution above by @jwbth seems the most clear and concise.
It is just one line of code at the top. Not a big deal.

But it still has to be added and class name still has to be provided in two distinct places. If someone accidentally forgets to change one of them while changing the other, this can lead to a very pleasant debugging experience.