为什么不直接使用本地方式访问枚举的字符串呢?

enum e {
  WHY,
  NOT,
  USE,
  NATIVE
}

e[e.WHY] // this returns string 'WHY'

我也有同样的问题，然后想出了一个很好用的函数:

每个条目的键和值都是字符串，并且相同。 每个条目的值都是从键派生出来的。(即。“不要重复你自己”，不像字符串值的常规枚举) TypeScript类型成熟且正确。(防止拼写错误) 还有一种简单的方法可以让TS自动完成您的选项。(如。打字MyEnum。，并立即看到可用的选项) 还有其他一些优点。(见答案底部)

效用函数:

export function createStringEnum<T extends {[key: string]: 1}>(keysObj: T) {
    const optionsObj = {} as {
        [K in keyof T]: keyof T
        // alternative; gives narrower type for MyEnum.XXX
        //[K in keyof T]: K
    };
    const keys = Object.keys(keysObj) as Array<keyof T>;
    const values = keys; // could also check for string value-overrides on keysObj
    for (const key of keys) {
        optionsObj[key] = key;
    }
    return [optionsObj, values] as const;
}

用法:

// if the "Fruit_values" var isn't useful to you, just omit it
export const [Fruit, Fruit_values] = createStringEnum({
    apple: 1,
    pear: 1,
});
export type Fruit = keyof typeof Fruit; // "apple" | "pear"
//export type Fruit = typeof Fruit_values[number]; // alternative

// correct usage (with correct types)
let fruit1 = Fruit.apple; // fruit1 == "apple"
fruit1 = Fruit.pear; // assigning a new fruit also works
let fruit2 = Fruit_values[0]; // fruit2 == "apple"

// incorrect usage (should error)
let fruit3 = Fruit.tire; // errors
let fruit4: Fruit = "mirror"; // errors

现在有人可能会问，这个“基于字符串的enum”比只使用:

type Fruit = "apple" | "pear";

有几个优点:

Auto-complete is a bit nicer (imo). For example, if you type let fruit = Fruit., Typescript will immediately list the exact set of options available. With string literals, you need to define your type explicitly, eg. let fruit: Fruit = , and then press ctrl+space afterward. (and even that results in unrelated autocomplete options being shown below the valid ones) The TSDoc metadata/description for an option is carried over to the MyEnum.XXX fields! This is useful for providing additional information about the different options. For example: You can access the list of options at runtime (eg. Fruit_values, or manually with Object.values(Fruit)). With the type Fruit = ... approach, there is no built-in way to do this, which cuts off a number of use-cases. (for example, I use the runtime values for constructing json-schemas)

我正在寻找一种方法来实现typescript枚举中的描述(v2.5)，这种模式适合我:

export enum PriceTypes {
    Undefined = 0,
    UndefinedDescription = 'Undefined' as any,
    UserEntered = 1,
    UserEnteredDescription = 'User Entered' as any,
    GeneratedFromTrade = 2,
    GeneratedFromTradeDescription = 'Generated From Trade' as any,
    GeneratedFromFreeze = 3,
    GeneratedFromFreezeDescription = 'Generated Rom Freeze' as any
}

...

    GetDescription(e: any, id: number): string {
        return e[e[id].toString() + "Description"];
    }
    getPriceTypeDescription(price: IPricePoint): string {
        return this.GetDescription(PriceTypes, price.priceType);
    }

更新:TypeScript 3.4

你可以简单地使用const:

const AwesomeType = {
   Foo: "foo",
   Bar: "bar"
} as const;

打字稿2.1

这也可以用这种方式完成。希望它能帮助到一些人。

const AwesomeType = {
    Foo: "foo" as "foo",
    Bar: "bar" as "bar"
};

type AwesomeType = (typeof AwesomeType)[keyof typeof AwesomeType];

console.log(AwesomeType.Bar); // returns bar
console.log(AwesomeType.Foo); // returns foo

function doSth(awesometype: AwesomeType) {
    console.log(awesometype);
}

doSth("foo") // return foo
doSth("bar") // returns bar
doSth(AwesomeType.Bar) // returns bar
doSth(AwesomeType.Foo) // returns foo
doSth('error') // does not compile

如果你想要的主要是易于调试(相当类型检查)，不需要为枚举指定特殊值，这是我正在做的:

export type Enum = { [index: number]: string } & { [key: string]: number } | Object;

/**
 * inplace update
 * */
export function enum_only_string<E extends Enum>(e: E) {
  Object.keys(e)
    .filter(i => Number.isFinite(+i))
    .forEach(i => {
      const s = e[i];
      e[s] = s;
      delete e[i];
    });
}

enum AuthType {
  phone, email, sms, password
}
enum_only_string(AuthType);

如果您希望支持遗留代码/数据存储，则可以保留数字键。

这样，您就可以避免键入两次值。

为什么不直接使用本地方式访问枚举的字符串呢?

enum e {
  WHY,
  NOT,
  USE,
  NATIVE
}

e[e.WHY] // this returns string 'WHY'