Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
On the other side, I'd say requiring explicit initialization to nil
increases the amount of busywork for the programmer for no good reason. I
use it all the time and I would be pretty annoyed if it went away. I would
be pretty shocked if most Swift users don't know that exists.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 2:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface
> area of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it
> in -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>
> Slava
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
--
Functional Programmer, iOS Developer, Surfs Poorly
http://twitter.com/n8gray
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
on Mon, 06 Nov 2017 14:33:44 -0800 Slava Pestov wrote:
Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface
> area of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it
> in -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>
value types only or classes as well?
i use the first form (and rely on it every here and there) and to me having
to set to nil explicitly will amount to more visual noise in the source.
btw, what is "the surface area of the language"?
Mike
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
Although I’m fine with the current behavior I’d go for the explicit init form.
Swift promotes explicit value bindings avoiding surprises which I learnt to
like.
In Java private Optional var; field declaration without RHS simply gets
inited with a null value and not the expected “none”. Really annoying.
Gábor
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2017. Nov 8., at 9:06, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:22 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>>
>> Not a big deal either way, but I prefer the 2nd (nil) form and therefore
>> would like to see the 1st form go. It would make Swift more consistent,
>> consider:
>>
>> let o: Int? // Looks like nil is assigned.
>> if someTest {
>> o = 1 // Why isn't this an error? (OK I know why - but it looks odd.)
>> } else {
>> o = nil
>> }
>>
>>
>> Whilst the above works it is weird because if you are aware that o: Int?
>> normally assigns nil then the above looks like o, which is a let, is
>> assigned to twice. If you do the equivalent of the above for a non-optional
>> it is an error.
>
> The default initialization behavior is specifically not enabled for let
> bindings. Compare:
>
> let x: Int?
> print(x as Any) // error: constant 'x' used before being initialized
>
> var y: Int?
> print(y as Any)
>
> So your example is perfectly consistent, because you’re only initializing ‘o’
> once (along each control flow path).
>
> Slava
>
>>
>> -- Howard.
>>
>>> On 8 November 2017 at 07:54, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
>>> wrote:
>>> Same here, but I wouldn’t care much if it were gone.
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 7. November 2017 um 21:40:56, David Hart via swift-evolution
>>> (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
>>>
Yeah, I use the first form constantly.
> On 6 Nov 2017, at 23:33, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not
> Optional!) always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature
> increases the surface area of the language for no good reason, and I
> would like to deprecate it in -swift-version 5 with a short proposal.
> Does anyone feel strongly about giving it up? I suspect most Swift users
> don’t even know it exists.
>
> Slava
> ___
> 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
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
> On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:22 PM, Howard Lovatt via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Not a big deal either way, but I prefer the 2nd (nil) form and therefore
> would like to see the 1st form go. It would make Swift more consistent,
> consider:
>
> let o: Int? // Looks like nil is assigned.
> if someTest {
> o = 1 // Why isn't this an error? (OK I know why - but it looks odd.)
> } else {
> o = nil
> }
>
>
> Whilst the above works it is weird because if you are aware that o: Int?
> normally assigns nil then the above looks like o, which is a let, is assigned
> to twice. If you do the equivalent of the above for a non-optional it is an
> error.
The default initialization behavior is specifically not enabled for let
bindings. Compare:
let x: Int?
print(x as Any) // error: constant 'x' used before being initialized
var y: Int?
print(y as Any)
So your example is perfectly consistent, because you’re only initializing ‘o’
once (along each control flow path).
Slava
>
> -- Howard.
>
> On 8 November 2017 at 07:54, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> Same here, but I wouldn’t care much if it were gone.
>
>
> Am 7. November 2017 um 21:40:56, David Hart via swift-evolution
> (swift-evolution@swift.org ) schrieb:
>
>> Yeah, I use the first form constantly.
>>
>> > On 6 Nov 2017, at 23:33, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
>> > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>> >
>> > struct S {
>> > var x: Int?
>> > }
>> >
>> > struct S {
>> > var x: Int? = nil
>> > }
>> >
>> > That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
>> > always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface
>> > area of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it
>> > in -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
>> > giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>> >
>> > Slava
>> > ___
>> > 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
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
Not a big deal either way, but I prefer the 2nd (nil) form and therefore
would like to see the 1st form go. It would make Swift more consistent,
consider:
let o: Int? // Looks like nil is assigned.
if someTest {
o = 1 // Why isn't this an error? (OK I know why - but it looks odd.)
} else {
o = nil
}
Whilst the above works it is weird because if you are aware that o: Int?
normally assigns nil then the above looks like o, which is a let, is
assigned to twice. If you do the equivalent of the above for a non-optional
it is an error.
-- Howard.
On 8 November 2017 at 07:54, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> Same here, but I wouldn’t care much if it were gone.
>
>
> Am 7. November 2017 um 21:40:56, David Hart via swift-evolution (
> swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
>
> Yeah, I use the first form constantly.
>
> > On 6 Nov 2017, at 23:33, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
> >
> > struct S {
> > var x: Int?
> > }
> >
> > struct S {
> > var x: Int? = nil
> > }
> >
> > That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not
> Optional!) always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases
> the surface area of the language for no good reason, and I would like to
> deprecate it in -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel
> strongly about giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it
> exists.
> >
> > Slava
> > ___
> > 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
>
>
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
Same here, but I wouldn’t care much if it were gone.
Am 7. November 2017 um 21:40:56, David Hart via swift-evolution
(swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
Yeah, I use the first form constantly.
> On 6 Nov 2017, at 23:33, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface area
> of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in
> -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>
> Slava
> ___
> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
Yeah, I use the first form constantly.
> On 6 Nov 2017, at 23:33, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface area
> of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in
> -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>
> Slava
> ___
> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
I used the existence of the first one in my explanation of explain
optionals. "There is a reasonable default value for an optional type.
'nothing'."
TJ
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Kelvin Ma wrote:
>
> hot take: i use the second one a lot but only because i always forget the
> first one exists. So I type the = nil just to “be sure”.
>
>
> Yeah, that’s one of my arguments against having the feature, along with
> the simple fact that if the language did not have it already, nobody would
> be requesting this to be added as a special case for optionals.
>
> However, since I also want to avoid needless source compatibility churn,
> I’m fine with keeping the feature — it’s not a huge burden to maintain
> (unlike, say, AnyObject dispatch :) )
>
> Slava
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>>
>> struct S {
>> var x: Int?
>> }
>>
>> struct S {
>> var x: Int? = nil
>> }
>>
>> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
>> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface
>> area of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it
>> in -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
>> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>>
>> Slava
>> ___
>> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Kelvin Ma wrote:
>
> hot take: i use the second one a lot but only because i always forget the
> first one exists. So I type the = nil just to “be sure”.
Yeah, that’s one of my arguments against having the feature, along with the
simple fact that if the language did not have it already, nobody would be
requesting this to be added as a special case for optionals.
However, since I also want to avoid needless source compatibility churn, I’m
fine with keeping the feature — it’s not a huge burden to maintain (unlike,
say, AnyObject dispatch :) )
Slava
>
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface area
> of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in
> -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>
> Slava
> ___
> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 5:29 PM, Kelvin Ma via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> hot take: i use the second one a lot but only because i always forget the
> first one exists. So I type the = nil just to “be sure”.
>
Same here! I just changed a bunch of code since I’d forgotten they were the same
> On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface area
> of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in
> -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>
> Slava
> ___
> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
hot take: i use the second one a lot but only because i always forget the
first one exists. So I type the = nil just to “be sure”.
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface
> area of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it
> in -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>
> Slava
> ___
> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
It sounds like several people rely on this behavior and are actually aware that
it exists, so I won’t pursue the issue further.
Thanks for the feedback!
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Alejandro Martinez wrote:
>
> I won’t complain a lot if it’s decided to be removed but I would prefer it to
> stay. I use it constantly.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On 6 Nov 2017, at 22:41, Jon Shier via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>>
>> I use this on all of my mutable optional properties, when I have to use
>> them. It’s just that little extra bit of code I don’t need to write, and it
>> feels a lot like parameter defaults in use. By surface area, I assume you
>> mean the fact that it’s an implicit behavior people may need to remember? As
>> something like that, this seems like a very small one. As for users knowing
>> about it, I’m guessing it falls into one of those things that people just
>> never explicitly notice but would likely have a huge impact on anyone with
>> lots of mutable optionals. Developers from other languages may also assume
>> this behavior, since it replicates the “nil by default” behavior seen in
>> other languages.
>> Ultimately, while I won’t feel this deeply, since I tend to view mutable
>> optionals as poor practice in Swift, it’s a nice little convenience that
>> will likely impact everyone using mutable optionals. If you really want to
>> find out, perhaps run it agains the compatibility suite?
>>
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>>>
>>> struct S {
>>> var x: Int?
>>> }
>>>
>>> struct S {
>>> var x: Int? = nil
>>> }
>>>
>>> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
>>> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface
>>> area of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it
>>> in -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
>>> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>>>
>>> Slava
>>> ___
>>> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
I won’t complain a lot if it’s decided to be removed but I would prefer it to
stay. I use it constantly.
Sent from my iPad
> On 6 Nov 2017, at 22:41, Jon Shier via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
>I use this on all of my mutable optional properties, when I have to use
> them. It’s just that little extra bit of code I don’t need to write, and it
> feels a lot like parameter defaults in use. By surface area, I assume you
> mean the fact that it’s an implicit behavior people may need to remember? As
> something like that, this seems like a very small one. As for users knowing
> about it, I’m guessing it falls into one of those things that people just
> never explicitly notice but would likely have a huge impact on anyone with
> lots of mutable optionals. Developers from other languages may also assume
> this behavior, since it replicates the “nil by default” behavior seen in
> other languages.
>Ultimately, while I won’t feel this deeply, since I tend to view mutable
> optionals as poor practice in Swift, it’s a nice little convenience that will
> likely impact everyone using mutable optionals. If you really want to find
> out, perhaps run it agains the compatibility suite?
>
>
> Jon
>
>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>>
>> struct S {
>> var x: Int?
>> }
>>
>> struct S {
>> var x: Int? = nil
>> }
>>
>> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
>> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface
>> area of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in
>> -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
>> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>>
>> Slava
>> ___
>> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
I use this on all of my mutable optional properties, when I have to use
them. It’s just that little extra bit of code I don’t need to write, and it
feels a lot like parameter defaults in use. By surface area, I assume you mean
the fact that it’s an implicit behavior people may need to remember? As
something like that, this seems like a very small one. As for users knowing
about it, I’m guessing it falls into one of those things that people just never
explicitly notice but would likely have a huge impact on anyone with lots of
mutable optionals. Developers from other languages may also assume this
behavior, since it replicates the “nil by default” behavior seen in other
languages.
Ultimately, while I won’t feel this deeply, since I tend to view
mutable optionals as poor practice in Swift, it’s a nice little convenience
that will likely impact everyone using mutable optionals. If you really want to
find out, perhaps run it agains the compatibility suite?
Jon
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface area
> of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in
> -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
>
> Slava
> ___
> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
> always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface area
> of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in
> -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about
> giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
I don’t have too strong an opinion on this, leaning towards being supportive.
That said, I think you underestimate the source breakage it will cause. I have
seen a lot of code this change will break (albeit in a trivial way that’s easy
to migrate).
>
> Slava
> ___
> 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
Re: [swift-evolution] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
Just a quick question for clarification. What will happen to these? Do we have
to provide the default value ourselves?
class ViewController : UIViewController {
@IBOutlet weak var view1: UIView?
@IBOutlet weak var view2: UIView!
}
Am 6. November 2017 um 23:33:51, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
(swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
Hi all,
Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
struct S {
var x: Int?
}
struct S {
var x: Int? = nil
}
That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface area
of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in
-swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about giving
it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
Slava
___
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] Pitch: Remove default initialization of optional bindings
Hi all,
Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
struct S {
var x: Int?
}
struct S {
var x: Int? = nil
}
That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional!)
always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface area
of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in
-swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about giving
it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.
Slava
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
