While this is nice, it adds ambiguity to the nil-coalescing operator. For
example, when using nil-coalescing with a wrapped error value and an
unwrapped error value as operands:
let optionalError: Errors? = nil
let result = optionalError ?? Errors.generic
The above will result in an "Ambiguous use of operator" error. Even if you
were to somehow constrain the first argument to arguments of non-error
types, it would still make the operator incongruous.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Hooman Mehr <hoo...@mac.com> wrote:
> I think the best solution is overloading the existing ?? operator. It is
> very easy to do:
>
> func ??<T,U: Error>(lhs: T?, rhs: U) throws -> T {
>
>
> if let lhs = lhs { return lhs } else { throw rhs }
> }
>
> then you can say:
>
> do {
>
>
> let y = try x ?? myError
>
>
> } catch ...
>
> It might even make sense to add to the standard library.
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 12:04 AM, Jack Newcombe via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> This can actually be accomplished now using a closure:
>
> let value = optionalValue ?? { throw CustomError.failure }()
>
> However, this adds a layer of indirection that I’m not keen on and lacks
> the readability and maintainability of a well-defined operator.
>
> The problem with changing the nil-coalescing operator is that it means
> allowing the second operand to be a statement rather than an expression,
> which I assume would be seen as an unacceptable.
>
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 07:56, Brent Royal-Gordon <br...@architechies.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:00 PM, Jack Newcombe via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> I propose the introduction of a nil-rejection operator (represented here
> as !!) as a complement to the above operators.
> .
> This operator should allow an equivalent behaviour to the forced
> unwrapping of a variable, but with the provision of an error to throw in
> place of throwing a fatal error.
>
> - value !! Error :
> if value is nil, throw non-fatal error
> if value is not nil, return value
>
> Example of how this syntax might work (Where CustomError: Error):
>
> let value = try optionalValue !! CustomError.failure
>
>
> Rather than invent a new operator, I'd prefer to make `throw` an
> expression rather than a statement. Then you could write:
>
> let value = optionalValue ?? throw CustomError.Failure
>
> One issue here would be figuring out the proper return type for `throw`.
> Although if `Never` were a subtype-of-all-types, that would of course work.
> :^)
>
> --
> 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
