[WIP] Refactor the options interface

[SamVerschueren]

I came across this solution in this thread. It's more experimental and maybe we can take some ideas from it.

However, it's not 100% identical to what we had. Because when using .reject(), the value is optional, which doesn't look like I can do easily with this approach.

A second approach could be to just do this

export interface Options {
	signal?: AbortSignal,
}

export interface ValueOptions<Value> {
	value: Value
}

declare const delay: {
	(milliseconds: number, options?: Options): ClearablePromise<void>;

	<Value>(milliseconds: number, options?: Options & ValueOptions<Value>): ClearablePromise<Value>;

	reject(milliseconds: number, options?: Options & Partial<ValueOptions<Value>>): ClearablePromise<never>;
};

Wrapping it in Partial makes all the properties of that interface optional.

I would be fine with keeping it as is though. Just wanted to share my ideas.

[felixfbecker]

Personal opinion: I found it more readable before.

[sindresorhus]

@BendingBender Any opinion on this approach?

[BendingBender]

I'd rather do it like this. I don't find it inherently better, I find it just a bit clearer:

interface Options {
	signal?: AbortSignal;
	value?: unknown;
}

interface OptionsWithValue<ValueType> extends Options {
	value: ValueType;
}

type Delay = {
	// NOTE: In this overload the options parameter is not optional
	<ValueType>(milliseconds: number, options: OptionsWithValue<ValueType>): ClearablePromise<ValueType>;

	(milliseconds: number, options?: Options): ClearablePromise<void>;

	reject(milliseconds: number, options?: Options): ClearablePromise<never>;
};

[felixfbecker]

Which is the same as right now, except with external interface and no specific docblock on value. Still prefer the current state 🤷‍♂️

[sindresorhus]

Yeah, I agree, what we have is better.