Pitch: Soft unwrapping of optionals


(Thorsten Seitz) #1

Yes, having to be explicit is the whole point about optionals: having to think about what the missing case means in the current context.

-Thorsten

···

Am 11. Mai 2016 um 14:20 schrieb Patrick Smith via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org>:

I actually think this is less safe. It depends on the situation for what value the default should be. Sometimes it will be false, other times it will be true. So far better to explicitly show what the default is.

On 11 May 2016, at 10:16 PM, Basem Emara via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

Forcing unwrapping of optionals is bad practice, but safely unwrapping can be tedious. I’m hoping for something in between that would that would provide soft unwrapping using a syntax like: myVar?!

For example, currently we have to do this:

let temp = (myString ?? “”); print(“\(temp)”)
if (myString ?? “”).isEmpty {…}
if myBool ?? false {…}
if (myInt ?? 0) > otherInt {…}

To something like this instead:

print(“\(temp?!)”)
if myString?!.isEmpty {…}
if myBool?! {…}
if myInt?! > otherInt {…}

What this is implying is that it will attempt to unwrap or use the default of the type.

Of course, this will only work with primitive types and leverage their implicit default values which would go a long way with tedious code and more safety (less forced unwrapping in the world). Otherwise it will produce a compile error if doing something like: myCustomType?!. What do you think?

Basem
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org

https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution