Add `Omit` as a known interface

[basarat]

Search Terms

Omit

Suggestion

Add the following type to lib.d.ts:

type Omit<ObjectType, KeysType extends keyof ObjectType> = Pick<ObjectType, Exclude<keyof ObjectType, KeysType>>;

More

Origin : #12215 (comment)

From : https://github.com/sindresorhus/type-fest/blob/0226ef2092ee2b07a8714c832d106da659877a8f/index.d.ts#L75 Please open new issues on TypeScript about making it built-in.. I searched but couldn't find an issue, so here it is 🌹

Checklist

My suggestion meets these guidelines:

• 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, etc.)
• This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.

[j-oliveras]

Duplicate of #19569?

[weswigham]

Not really? That was back when there was only a hairy mapped-type based definition of Omit which we didn't particularly like, so didn't want to add.

[nmain]

Eventually that issue was closed after conditional types were added. @ahejlsberg made #21847 and said:

We did not include the Omit<T, K> type because it is trivially written as Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, K>>

[dragomirtitian]

@nmain My 2¢, trivial for some magic for others, I would argue all build-in mapped and conditional types are trivial to write but that does not make them any less useful. Having a common set of types makes code easier to understand across projects. Omit is also simpler to understand for newer typescript devs and they don't have to do conditional type math when looking at a definition, they just care about the behavior of the type.

[sindresorhus]

I personally use Omit much more often than the other built-in helper types.

[jeremiergz]

Totally agree, I end up declaring that Omit type in almost every project.
It's like Record<string, string> could be written { [k: string]: string}. I prefer the Record helper, same feeling about this one.

[SleeplessByte]

I've used Omit in every single project and every single time I have to look it up, because Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, K>> isn't trivial to recall; if many people use it in every project, it make sense to make it part of lib.d.ts right?

It's like Record<string, string> could be written { [k: string]: string}. I prefer the Record helper, same feeling about this one.

That's not the same; and it's not even close.

[jeremiergz]

That's not the same; and it's not even close.

How so? Isn't it better to explain your train of thought when you say someone's wrong?...

[SleeplessByte]

That's not the same; and it's not even close.

How so? Isn't it better to explain your train of thought when you say someone's wrong?...

Sorry, you're right -- and my thoughts were wrong anyway. I would even say that omit is far more difficult than record!

What I should have said is that it's better to compare Record<keyof K, string> to { [P in K]: string }.

[fabiospampinato]

The docs' reasoning about this is:

We did not include the Omit<T, K> type because it is trivially written as Pick<T, Exclude<keyof T, K>>

I'm not so sure about the triviality of it, especially for new TS devs, but IMHO this isn't a good reason for not including Omit, to me it feels like saying that if I have this code:

return collection.map ( item => item.foo () );

I don't really need map because it's trivial to do the same with forEach:

const result = [];
collection.forEach ( item => result.push ( item.foo () ) );
return result;

I mean yeah, it's trivial, but am I supposed to write such ugly code every time or am I supposed to redefine map every time?