SE-0345: `if let` shorthand for shadowing an existing optional variable

[James_Dempsey]

@Zhu_Shengqi

@James_Dempsey

Reading through the Swift Evolution Process document, there’s nothing requiring a proposal to have a particular level of convergence of opinions before it is reviewed…

As others has pointed out, this proposal actually falls in common rejected changes. I am not saying a convergence is required for a formal proposal to be reviewed, I am just stating the fact that this formal proposal contains so many opposite opinions (with 200+ comments!) as the previous pitch. I don't think there will be a convergence at the end (as with most of other accepted proposals).

I think there are are fair number of proposals where there isn't convergence of opinion of review participants at the end. A recent example would be SE-0307: Allow interchangeable use of CGFloat and Double types. People made their cases for and against and then the core team made their decision.

@Zhu_Shengqi

@James_Dempsey

@Zhu_Shengqi

The Core Team should at least help ensure the formal proposal address the most significant concerns in the pitch stage and reaches the bar for a formal review, which is not the case.

Reading over the objections to the proposal, they seem to largely fall into two categories:

The first being that this proposal favors 'brevity over clarity' and potential downsides of omitting the RHS. The proposal makes the case that this change achieves 'clarity through brevity' by eliminating boilerplate.

The second being a desire for an alternate shorthand syntax. Rationale why the proposed syntax was chosen over various alternatives is detailed in the proposal.

So, I think the proposal does address the most significant concerns which is what is expected of a proposal when it comes to review.

For the first category, this is just your opinion (as with half of the reviewers in this thread). For the second category, my understanding is that some reviewers in the thread just think the existing if let binding works fine and nicely.

I wasn’t really making an argument for or against this proposal here. I was saying that I think the proposal does address the significant concerns brought up in the pitch phase.