Distributing Conditional Types Over never

In TypeScript, I wanted to write a generic type that had optional type params. The behaviour of the type would change depending on whether the optional type is provided. Here is a contrived example that I had initially written to test this:

type Foo<T = never> = T extends never ? true : false;

const x: Foo;
const y: Foo<string>;

Surprisingly, x in this example resolves to the never type instead of true. I realized this behaviour is particular to never since if you have a conditional with non-bottom type like so:

T extends string ? true : false

...things would behave as I would expect. I realized at this point, my understanding of the never type is incomplete and I found this GitHub issue in the TS project to help me understand. This conditional type expression using extends is called a distributive conditional type when run on a union. Consider the following:

type Demo<T> = T extends string ? true : false;

If T is a union type, this ternary is distributed across all union members.

type T = U | V

// The extends check will be applied to each part of the union.
U extends string ? true : false | V extends string ? true : false

This means:

• Demo<string | string> will be true
• Demo<number | number> will be false
• Demo<string | number> will be boolean

Now consider when T is the never type. never is the empty union (a union with no members). This can be demonstrated by:

const x: string = "" as string | never;

Since T has no members, extends is never applied , so T extends never would never be applied in our first example, thus the result is never. I think I was naively thinking about extends never like you would a equality check but I find it helpful to think of types more as categories/sets than values.

So how do you make the type optional? Well it turns out you can do something like this and the Foo type will be a boolean as expected.

type Foo<T = never> = [T] extends [never] ? true : false;

This seems to work because [T] is guaranteed to be a non-empty union, so the extends [never] will always distribute over it. It's a bit hard to rationalize what [never] represents though. Is [never] the same as []? TS seems to disagree:

cont x: [never] = []; // This fails

Interestingly, the following works:

const x: never[] = [];

My intuition is that:

• never[] is an array of nevers. [] is a valid instance of this.
• [never] is a 1-tuple with a value that can never occur. So [never] can never occur. So I don't think a runtime representation of [never] exists.