The problem with that is that when consuming of the dictionary, “doesn’t know” is actually more appropriate. If you then access Object.values(foo) in your method you are given an iterable of anys which is unsafe.
If the function is doing something with the values which is unsafe, sure. My point was the more relaxed constrain on the type signature can be used to imply it’s only concerned with the dictionary’s keys.
Coming back to this after the other thread cooled down a bit lol - to me, unknown actually implies that the function doesn’t care about the values more than any, as the compiler will enforce that they’re unused.
And in any case, I’d almost always lean towards the option with stronger type safety guarantees. Especially in a team environment when someone else may be modifying your code later. As a convention, I almost never use any.
To me `unknown` signals an intent to know, as in “I don’t know yet” (or put another way, “I don’t have any prerequisites for accepting this value, I can and will narrow it as appropriate”). In a codebase that otherwise takes type safety seriously, `any` in a type parameter (again to me) means “I don’t have any type narrowing agenda for this thing, it’s along for the ride and coming out the other side the same way it showed up”.
I’m not being lazy? I am taking extra time and expending extra energy to make sure the metadata I put in code is as informative as possible. In this use case `any` carries more information. I use `unknown` in place of `any` exactly as it’s intended wherever I’m able.
Okay I'll stop being a jerk and engage in good faith. I'll assume you think this is a valid use case for any and it communicates something important.
My counterpoint is this: communication involves two things, someone stating a message and someone receiving a message. You are doing part one. Is part two occurring? It may be because of certain conventions in your codebase or team, but I've personally never seen any used in that manner ever, so I would not receive your intended message.
If I were in the same situation I would use unknown and add a comment stating that the type is of no importance since I'm only worried about the keys. That way my message is clear and I prevent future developers from having to debug code where they assume the value is of a certain type and start accessing parameters and methods that do not exist.
Valid feedback. I even thought of adding it myself, because implied stuff isn’t obvious. I felt it worth communicating because there’s value in what’s implied that isn’t available in the type system. To the extent I have team members consuming the same code, I would definitely communicate the intent. To the extent I have reviewers who read the code, I do discuss it.
To the extent this is in a type parameter position, the onus is on the person writing the function signature and… well if they don’t want a footgun, they have every opportunity to not gun their foot. But that’s entirely opt in by the time they’ve reached that point.
As an addendum if the function only needs the keys I would possibly just have the parameter be a string[] that expected the user to call object.Keys to pass to.
That way the function isn't asking for parameters it doesn't really care about.
Though I do get the appeal of having the function call object.Keys if it's called frequently so as not to have to sprinkle that call everywhere.
Yeah unfortunately it’s ergonomically A Thing to just accept object as input even if you only care about keys. Otherwise I’d have the exact signature you describe.