Golang has IMO successfully used this in their IF statement. Coming from a recent imersion into the language, it is not as distracting in real life code on a day to day basis, as it might seem to be when first seen in a spec. Considering the parallel with the swift guard, this is IMO a nice advancement.
On May 28, 2016, at 1:35 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0099-conditionclauses.md > >> • What is your evaluation of the proposal? > > Oof. > > I am not a fan of this syntax. `;` reads very strongly as a statement ender > to me, and yet at the same time, it's still visually quite close to `,`. My > first impression was that the proposal had an embarrassing typo in the very > first example. > > My suggestion would be to reuse our normal && operator: > > guard > x == 0 && > let y = optional && > z == 2 > else { ... } > > This would obviously be a built-in `&&` separate from our existing, infix > operator `&&`. (Well, unless we make `let` and `case` clauses return Bools in > an `if` statement, and somehow teach the compiler that `&&` will return > `false` if a binding fails.) But there is no ambiguity about the meaning of > this code. It is obvious that both conditions have to succeed, and it is > obvious that `z == 2` was not meant to be another optional binding. Honestly, > in some ways it's more understandable than the status quo. > >> • Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change >> to Swift? > > Maybe, if we have a good enough solution. I don't think this is it. > >> • Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? > > I think it's kind of neutral, honestly. > >> • If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, >> how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? > > Most languages I've used have `if` statements which take a simple boolean > expression, so they don't face this problem. > >> • How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick >> reading, or an in-depth study? > > Pretty much a glance. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > 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