> On Dec 19, 2015, at 12:37 PM, ilya via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> I prefer
>
> if let vc = someInterestingViewConroller {
> vc.doSomething()
> }
>
> - Explicit is better than implicit
> - shadowing is bad
> - now there's no ambiguity about how to change the original property.
>
> Therefore I'm -1 on any proposal that hides explicit name binding and/or
> increases shadowing, including let foo and unwrap foo.
+1 to that. IMO re-using the same name for the unwrapped version of an
optional variable does not help readability, and I don't want to encourage it.
In a localized context like this, a short name is often better anyway as it
declutters the code inside the block.
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 21:31 Kevin Wooten via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
> As much fun as it to example with foo, I would argue the opposite when you
> use some real world variable names:
>
> if let someInterestingViewConroller = someInterestingViewConroller {
> }
>
> vs
>
> If let someInterestingViewConroller {
> }
>
> We know what let does and it should be enough to impart the necessary
> information for this statement.
>
> When it comes to newcomers I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody
> who'd be able to understand either form without teaching; so not losing much
> there.
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Jeff Kelley via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ve had similar ideas to this. Instead of ditching the if let syntax
>>> altogether, another approach would be to use the existing name if no new
>>> name is given, so that this code:
>>>
>>> if let foo = foo { /* use foo */ }
>>>
>>> could become this code:
>>>
>>> if let foo { /* use foo */ }
>>>
>>> In both cases, foo is non-optional inside the braces. If you gave it
>>> another name with the if let syntax, that would work as it does today.
>>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> This is commonly requested - the problem is that while it does help reduce
>> boilerplate, it runs counter to the goal of improving clarity.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
-Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
