Rename Omit

[sindresorhus]

We managed to convince the TS team to add Omit as a built-in type, unfortunately, they added a loose version, not what we suggested, and they insist on staying with it.

The great thing about user-land code is that we can fix their dumb decisions.

However, that does mean our Omit type will conflict with the native one... But I guess that gives us the opportunity to come up with a better name for it.

I never really found Omit that clear. How about ExcludeProperty or ExcludeKey? I prefer the former. Open to other suggestions.

[BendingBender]

I find ExcludeProperty very appealing.

[CvX]

The another option is StrictOmit, to highlight both similarity to the built-in and its main difference. But I'm ok with any of suggested names.

[sindresorhus]

@CvX I don't like having to prefix types with Strict. They should IMHO be strict by default. In this case, it's not up to us, so I would rather have a different name.

[sindresorhus]

Alright. We'll go with ExcludeProperty. But let's defer doing anything until it's 100% certain that TS 3.5 will ship with a loose Omit type.

[sindresorhus]

Relevant discussion: microsoft/TypeScript#31205

[sindresorhus]

Since we're renaming this anyway, maybe we should name it ExcludeProperties and add support for excluding multiple properties?

[BendingBender]

As far as I understand the type, it will already exclude multiple properties when used with a union type:

Omit<SomeType, 'foo' | 'bar'>

will omit properties foo and bar.

[andyfleming]

While I wish they would have stayed consistent with what the community already understands as the behavior of Omit, I do actually like having an omit-key-if-exists AND a omit-key form of the type helper.

[andyfleming]

I think I like ExcludeKey over ExcludeProperty since it matches the language they use with syntax types like keyof.

[andyfleming]

I'm also not convinced we need a second word in the type name.

Something like Exclude, Remove, or Without could be viable.

[sindresorhus]

As far as I understand the type, it will already exclude multiple properties when used with a union type:

I did not realize that. We should definitely document that better.

[sindresorhus]

@andyfleming Yeah, I like your argument about consistency. But shouldn't it be ExcludeKeys since it supports multiple keys?

[andyfleming]

@sindresorhus I think the verbalized version of it makes sense as singular, specifically because of the union type.

let obj: ExcludeKey<ObjectType, "a" | "b">

Exclude key "a" or "b"

[andyfleming]

We may also want to consider if we should avoid using the word Exclude since it's already in typescript as a type helper.

[kainiedziela]

How about reducing it to a single word 'Except'? Then it's readable, understandable and I believe has no conflicts with wording. Skip and Bypass are viable as well but I have to say - Omit is by far the most clear one.

let obj: Except<ObjectType, 'a' | 'b'>

[sindresorhus]

Alright. Let's go with Except.