> On Aug 15, 2016, at 4:09 PM, Charlie Monroe <char...@charliemonroe.net> wrote:
>
> The example above was to better demonstrate the problem with *when* to
> evaluate the latter argument. Why should both arguments be evaluated *before*
> the if statement? If both calls return Optionals,
>
> if let x = bar(42), y = baz(42) { ... }
>
> is how would I write it without the suggested syntax - baz(42) will *not* be
> evaluated if bar(42) returns nil. Which bears a question why would
>
> foo(bar(42)?, baz(42)?)
>
> evaluate both arguments even if the first one is nil, making it incosistent
> with the rest of the language?
I see your point. I understand that maybe 1/2 of the people think we should
evaluate both arguments and 1/2 of the people think we should only evaluate the
first argument.
I changed my idea a little bit. Now I think you are right. We should only
evaluate the first argument in your example. It’s not only because of
inconsistent, but also because the language should at least provide a way to
“short-circuit” to rest of the arguments.
If they want to opt-out this behavior, they can always write:
```
let x = bar(42)
let y = baz(42)
foo(x?, y?)
```
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
