Despite the presence of
implements Partial<RouteConfig>
, the message it conveys is not beneficial to the TypeScript compiler. In essence, it conveys that
DefaultRouteConfig may or may not possess any properties of
RouteConfig. This information remains true even without the
implements declaration.
An insightful aspect of TypeScript's type system is its structural nature, as opposed to a nominal one. It focuses on the structure of types rather than their names. For instance, consider the following valid TypeScript code:
// Declared in one location
interface A {
example: string;
}
// Declared elsewhere
interface B {
example: string;
}
// ...
function something(param: A) {
// ...
}
const x: B = {example: "Hi there"};
something(x);
Even though x is defined as type B, it can still be passed into something which expects a parameter of type
A</code. This is permissible because <code>x
encompasses all the attributes of
A</code, making it a valid <code>A
object in TypeScript's eyes. The specific type name is inconsequential.
Therefore, the inclusion of the implements clause contributes nothing productive to TypeScript. TypeScript inherently understands how objects align based on their structures, disregarding type names. Therefore, eliminating the
implements Partial<RouteConfig>
statement, which serves no real purpose, should rectify any associated errors. Optionally, a comment can be added for clarification, though the class name already communicates this effectively.