Description
Suggestion
Relax syntax restrictions on decorations. At least do not remove parser support for decorators on interfaces.
I wouldn't mind parser-generated warnings because those can be suppressed. But if TypeScript stops parsing decorators on interfaces and interface members I will be really disappointed.
🔍 Search Terms
decorator syntax restriction interface
✅ Viability 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, new syntax sugar for JS, etc.)
- This feature would agree with the rest of TypeScript's Design Goals.
⭐ Suggestion
TypeScript works great as an "intermediate programming language", which is always transpiled into other languages.
Let's keep it that way! And make sure the design meets the requirements.
I would suggest TypeScript keep decorators on interfaces and interface members.
📃 Motivating Example
I am using TypeScript to transpile to Lua. And I need decorators on interfaces.
💻 Use Cases
Why can't decorators just "decorate"? It doesn't have to be meaningfully executable at all! After all, it is what meta-programming is about.