I was thinking about this too…but I’m not sure how feasible it would be.
However, I don’t find this any more confusing than having two ways to refer to it currently: nil and .none
none == sugar
.none == the underlying implementation of optional as Xiaodi put it (I am starting to see this view)
Brandon
···
On Jun 8, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Sean Heber <sean@fifthace.com> wrote:
If there’s both “.none” and “none”, then I think that’d be more confusing *because of* the naming consistency, IMO. I’d look at that as a newbie and wonder why in the world this word sometimes has a dot and sometimes doesn’t.
If enum cases could be referred to without the leading “.” then perhaps I could get behind this because “none” wouldn’t even need to be a keyword at all in that case, but there are probably difficult ambiguities down that road.
l8r
SeanOn Jun 8, 2016, at 4:04 PM, Brandon Knope <bknope@me.com> wrote:
1. People will find .none ugly which is why I think it could be replaced by a none keyword. It is awkward
2. none is more descriptive than nil in this case. The case is named none (consistency!) and nil is a holdover from other languagesI understand how nil works in the context of other languages. But looking at Optional:
public enum Optional<Wrapped> : NilLiteralConvertible {/// The absence of a value.
///
/// In code, the absence of a value is typically written using the `nil`
/// literal rather than the explicit `.none` enumeration case.
case none/// The presence of a value, stored as `Wrapped`.
case some(Wrapped)
}These are not pointers and they sure look like one when you assign nil to an optional
B
Why would nil be chosen to represent the none case in the absence of other languages?
On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:55 PM, Sean Heber <sean@fifthace.com> wrote:
If you add a new keyword called “none” without the period, but keep allowing “.none” to work because Optional is really an enum… then I don’t really see what has been gained here at all - you’re basically back to nil/.none => 2 ways to say the same thing!
l8r
SeanOn Jun 8, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Brandon Knope via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
.none or a more appropriate keyword like “none” (imo)
Brandon
On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
It's been pointed out before that Optional being an enum type is treated like an implementation detail. Currently, it is possible to teach the concept of Optional without introducing enum types or generics. How would you do so after elimination of nil?
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Антон Жилин <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
(No joking)
Points:1. When nil was added to the language, we could not infer enumeration type:
if x != Optional.none { ... }Now it looks like this:
if x != .none { ... }If at this point we had a proposal to add nil as a replacement for .none, would we accept it?
2. nil is very generic, it only approximately allows to express the intentions.
In case of Optional, .none is clearer. In case of JSON processing, .null is clearer. In case of a semantically nullable struct, NilLiteralConvertible usually goes to default constructor.3. Too many "empty" things: .none, nil; NSNull, Void, NoReturn types.
4. There should be a single consistent terminology: no value in Swift equals none.
- Anton
_______________________________________________
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_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution