I recently came across this incorrect code in a project:
struct Video {
var progress: Float? {
willSet {
guard let value = newValue else {
self.progress = nil
return
}
self.progress = min(max(value, 0.0), 1.0)
}
}
}
The intent was to have progress clamped between 0 and 1 but this code clearly doesn't do that.
These specifics aren't important here but what I find curious is that it wasn't noticed – and I believe that's in part because Xcode gave no warning here. However, if I remove the two uses of explicit self I do get this warning:
Attempting to store to property 'progress' within its own willSet, which is about to be overwritten by the new value
I suspect that the author of that flawed code above would've immediately corrected it had this warning been shown to them.
My question:
Is there any good reason why the use of explicit self should affect whether or not this warning gets shown in this case? Personally I don't see why the use of explicit self here would obfuscate the problem that the warning points out.
tera
2
looks bug to me. minimal example:
struct S {
var foo: Int {
willSet {
self.foo = 0 // no warning
}
}
var bar: Int {
willSet {
bar = 0 // Attempting to store to property 'bar' within its own willSet, which is about to be overwritten by the new value
}
}
}
1 Like
Thank you. I suppose I should've just given this minimal example myself instead of the long-winded backstory.
I'm new to this community and its process – is this a known issue or should I report it at https://bugs.swift.org?
1 Like
tera
4
