So I have a real-life situation in an application, which does what you mention:
This code is for a camera app, on a `didSet` it removes a device if set from the capture session, and if there is a new one set it adds it to the capture session. The add and remove methods indeed don't take optionals. So this is the code before: var audioDevice: AVCaptureDeviceInput? = nil { willSet { if let audioDevice = audioDevice { captureSession?.removeInput(audioDevice) } } didSet { if audioDevice = audioDevice { captureSession?.addInput(audioDevice) } } } and after: var audioDevice: AVCaptureDeviceInput? = nil { willSet { audioDevice.unwrap { self.captureSession?.removeInput($0) } } didSet { audioDevice.unwrap { self.captureSession?.addInput($0) } } } The last two saved me a lot of typing in these cases and I feel like it is more clear what is going on due to the `unwrap` method being clear in it's intent and the lack of `audioDevice` being repeated multiple times. *___________________________________* *James⎥Head of Trolls* *ja...@supmenow.com <ja...@supmenow.com>⎥supmenow.com <http://supmenow.com>* *Sup* *Runway East * *10 Finsbury Square* *London* * EC2A 1AF * On 23 June 2016 at 17:11, Sean Heber <s...@fifthace.com> wrote: > I’m a bit tore on this myself. I see the appeal, but let’s say we had such > a function. If you wanted to use it with an named parameter it’d look like > this: > > myReallyLongOptionalName.unwrap { string in > doSomethingWith(string) > } > > And that is actually *more* characters than the current approach: > > if let string = myReallyLongOptionalName { > doSomethingWith(string) > } > > However it’d be a big win especially when you can skip $0 and the braces > entirely such as: > > myReallyLongOptionalName.unwrap(doSomethingWith) > > Of course if we were dealing with methods, you could write this like: > > myReallyLongOptionalName?.doSomething() > > And that is probably hard to beat. > > So I think the problem really only presents itself when you have an > optional that you need to unwrap and use as a parameter to something that > does not take an optional. > > I don’t have a solution - just trying to clarify the situation. :) > > l8r > Sean > > > > On Jun 23, 2016, at 10:36 AM, James Campbell via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > I was wondering if people would be open to adding an unwrap method to > the Optional type, I already have a method like this which shortens code > for me. > > > > So this: > > > > let myReallyLongOptionalName: String? = "Hey" > > > > if let string = myReallyLongOptionalName { > > doSomethingWith(string) > > } > > > > Could become" > > > > let myReallyLongOptionalName: String? = "Hey" > > > > myReallyLongOptionalName.unwrap { > > doSomethingWith($0) > > } > > > > The block would only be fired if myReallyLongOptionalName has a value. > > > > ___________________________________ > > > > James⎥Head of Trolls > > > > ja...@supmenow.com⎥supmenow.com > > > > Sup > > > > Runway East > > > > > 10 Finsbury Square > > > > London > > > > > EC2A 1AF > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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