TypeScript Constructor Overload with Empty Constructor

Question

Why is it not allowed to have separate constructor definitions in TypeScript?
To have e.g. two constructors<

Answer 1

The last function overload is only used in the implementation and not available publicly. This is shown below:

class Foo{
    constructor()
    constructor(id?: number) {
    }
}

const foo1 = new Foo();
const foo2 = new Foo(123); // Error! : not public

If you want id:number to be available publically ofcourse you can add another overload:

class Foo{
    constructor()
    constructor(id: number)
    constructor(id?: number) {
    }
}

const foo1 = new Foo();
const foo2 = new Foo(123); // Okay
const foo3 = new Foo('hello'); // Error: Does not match any public overload

The reason is that TypeScript tries not to do fancy code generation for function overloading (traditional languages do this using name mangling e.g. C++)

So you can pass none parameter or must pass parameters.

Actually you can make the final overload optional but none of the public ones as optional. Consider the following example:

class Foo{  
    constructor(id: number, name:string)
    constructor(name:string)
    constructor(idOrName?: number|string, name?:string) {
    }
}

const foo1 = new Foo('name'); // Okay
const foo2 = new Foo(123); // Error: you must provide a name if you use the id overload
const foo3 = new Foo(123,'name'); // Okay