> On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> `let value = (x == nil) ? nil : foo.bar(x: x)` isn't so bad, is it? You could
> even write a custom operator to sugar it.
It’s distasteful, due to the need to use the force-unwrap operator. In cases
like this, I usually end up writing:
let value: Foo? = nil
if let x = x {
value = foo.bar(x: x)
} else {
value = nil
}
or:
let value: Foo? = {
if let x = x {
return foo.bar(x: x)
} else {
return nil
}
}()
Both of which are unwieldy, but necessary to avoid the use of !.
I wouldn’t mind something like an overload on the ternary operator:
let value = x? ? foo.bar(x: x) : nil
in which a ? after the ternary condition indicates that it is an optional to be
unwrapped for the positive condition.
Charles
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
