[crabbone]

You are doing validation! Your type has no properties of a type of prime numbers. You either didn't read the article in OP, or didn't understand what OP was arguing for.

Yes, it's fine, if you want to validate your input in this way -- I have no problems with it. It's just that you are doing validation, not parsing, at least not in the terms OP used them.

[PartiallyTyped]

The argument of OP is that you should first construct your input such that it adheres to a very specific type that contains all the information that you require, e.g. nonEmpty, and then allow that to go through the rest of your code.

Am I mistaken?

My mistake in the above snippets is precisely that TypeScript can not make the type more specific, i.e. Number to Prime, because `type Prime=number` is only creating an alias. I am not creating a type that is a more specific version of number but an alias.

Had I actually created a proper type, the parsing would have been correct. The parsing component is happening in the outer function because at some point I need to make the generic input more specific, and then allow it to flow through the rest of the program. Am I mistaken?

[lexi-lambda]

You are sort of mistaken. I wrote a followup blog post that discusses what you are describing at some length: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2020/11/01/names-are-not-...

However, TypeScript does not really provide any facility for nominal types, which in my opinion is something of a failure of the language, especially considering that it is at odds with the semantics of `class` and `instanceof` in dynamically-typed JavaScript (which have generative semantics). Other statically typed languages generally provide some form of nominal typing, even gradually typed ones. Flow even provided nominal types in JavaScript! But TypeScript is generally also quite unsound (https://twitter.com/lexi_lambda/status/1621973087192236038), so the type system doesn’t really provide any guarantees, anyway.

That said, TypeScript programmers have developed a way to emulate nominal typing using “brands”, which does allow you to obtain some of these benefits within the limitations of TS’s type system. You can search for “TypeScript branded types” to find some explanations.

[PartiallyTyped]

This is fantastic, thank you very much!

When I wrote GP I had in mind branding as the "right" way to get those benefits - though I was unaware of the name - however I see that it is still limited by TS' compiler's limitations.

So then going back to the initial snippets, my issue is that the Prime type is essentially behaving like newtype, thus the inner calls can not actually rely on the value actually being prime, yes?

I have to admit that quite a few of the things in the blog are beyond my current understanding. Do you have any recommended reading for post grads with rudimentary understanding of Haskell who would like to get deeper into type systems?

[lexi-lambda]

Haskell’s `newtype` keyword defines a genuinely fresh (nominal) type that is distinct from all other types. There is no direct analogue in TypeScript, but using branded types would be the closest you could get. That’s still not quite the same because TypeScript doesn’t really allow the same strong encapsulation guarantees that Haskell provides (which, to be clear, many other languages provide as well!), but it’s a decent approximation.

The problem with your `Prime` type is that it is just a type alias: a new way to refer to the exact same type. It’s totally interchangeable with `number`, so any `number` is necessarily also a `Prime`… which is obviously not very helpful. (As it happens, the Haskell equivalent of that would be basically identical, since Haskell also uses the `type` keyword to declare a type alias.)

As for recommended reading, it depends on what you’d like to know, really. There are lots of different perspectives on type systems, and there’s certainly a lot of stuff you can learn if you want to! But I think most working programmers probably don’t benefit terribly much from the theory (though it can certainly be interesting if you’re into that sort of thing). Perhaps you could tell me which things you specifically find difficult to understand? That would make it easier for me to provide suggestions, and it would also be useful to me, as I do try to make my blog posts as accessible as possible!

[PartiallyTyped]

I'd be interested in more about Generic as that section went over my head though it's not an issue with your blog but rather inept knowledge on my part.

I find it quite interesting though I never had the time to study it further until now, so any recommendations are appreciated!

[lexi-lambda]

Generic is quite specific to Haskell, so it is probably difficult to explain without a little more understanding of Haskell-like type systems. (Rust has some similar capabilities, so that would help, too.) I wouldn’t worry about it too much, though; it doesn’t contain any particularly deep knowledge about type systems in general.

[crabbone]

> first construct your input

My man... if I, the author of my program, was constructing the input, I wouldn't need no validation. Input isn't meant to be constructed by the program's author, it's supposed to be processed...

[PartiallyTyped]

Construct was not the correct word. The intention was to express that you do need to parse the object into something more specific that captures the properties that you require.

Take for example APIGatewayProxyEvent [1], which has a property `queryStringParameters` with type:

    export interface APIGatewayProxyEventQueryStringParameters {
        [name: string]: string | undefined;
    }

You can then create a branded type like

    type AuthCodeEvent = APIGatewayProxyEvent & {
         queryStringParameters: {
             code: string;
             state: string;
         };
    };

The branded type here means that as soon as you verify that the event has that structure above, and you can assume that it is correct in the code handles these specific cases.

Though as the blog author mentioned in the other chain, the TS compiler is not particularly sound, so it's probably entirely possible to mess the structure and break the type without the compiler knowing about it.

[1] https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped/blob/mast...