Updated 07/12/2016:
Typescript 2.1 introduces Mapped Types and provides Partial<T>
, which allows you to do this....
class Person {
public name: string = "default"
public address: string = "default"
public age: number = 0;
public constructor(init?:Partial<Person>) {
Object.assign(this, init);
}
}
let persons = [
new Person(),
new Person({}),
new Person({name:"John"}),
new Person({address:"Earth"}),
new Person({age:20, address:"Earth", name:"John"}),
];
Original Answer:
My approach is to define a separate fields
variable that you pass to the constructor. The trick is to redefine all the class fields for this initialiser as optional. When the object is created (with its defaults) you simply assign the initialiser object onto this
;
export class Person {
public name: string = "default"
public address: string = "default"
public age: number = 0;
public constructor(
fields?: {
name?: string,
address?: string,
age?: number
}) {
if (fields) Object.assign(this, fields);
}
}
or do it manually (bit more safe):
if (fields) {
this.name = fields.name || this.name;
this.address = fields.address || this.address;
this.age = fields.age || this.age;
}
usage:
let persons = [
new Person(),
new Person({name:"Joe"}),
new Person({
name:"Joe",
address:"planet Earth"
}),
new Person({
age:5,
address:"planet Earth",
name:"Joe"
}),
new Person(new Person({name:"Joe"})) //shallow clone
];
and console output:
Person { name: 'default', address: 'default', age: 0 }
Person { name: 'Joe', address: 'default', age: 0 }
Person { name: 'Joe', address: 'planet Earth', age: 0 }
Person { name: 'Joe', address: 'planet Earth', age: 5 }
Person { name: 'Joe', address: 'default', age: 0 }
This gives you basic safety and property initialization, but its all optional and can be out-of-order. You get the class's defaults left alone if you don't pass a field.
You can also mix it with required constructor parameters too -- stick fields
on the end.
About as close to C# style as you're going to get I think (actual field-init syntax was rejected). I'd much prefer proper field initialiser, but doesn't look like it will happen yet.
For comparison, If you use the casting approach, your initialiser object must have ALL the fields for the type you are casting to, plus don't get any class specific functions (or derivations) created by the class itself.