Just an idea for the type declaration :
Why not use the same ? as Optional, but with the type of the error behind :
Such as
var x: Int?Error
Optional Int (Int?) would be seen a special case of Result where the error
type is nil.
The advantage of this syntax is that it would let us specify the type of
the error if we want it.
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Nick Keets via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> Right, to me there is not a lot of value in adding Result as it exists in
> AlamoFire. We will (eventually) use the Swift Package Manager for things
> like this. The value would be in integrating it like Optionals. e.g. (using
> a strawman symbol)
>
> var x: Int‽ = 5
> var y: Int‽ = anErrorValue
>
> func foo() -> Int‽ { ... }
>
> if let x = foo() {
> // x is Int
> } else {
> // somehow access the error
> }
>
> guard let x = foo() else {
> // Again somehow access the error
> }
>
> func bar() throws -> String { ... }
> let x = try‽ bar() // x is String‽
> let y = x! // y is String
>
> // Possibly even make it throw? (just using a random symbol again)
> let z = try x¡
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>> This is clearly a fine addition to the standard library; even Swift's
>> Error Handling Rationale (https://github.com/apple/swif
>> t/blob/master/docs/ErrorHandlingRationale.rst) mentions such an addition
>>
>> What separates standard library types from other types is that they have
>> language level support, and the wrapping and unwrapping syntax here could
>> definitely benefit from it (`.unwrap()`--which should be `.unwrapped()`
>> incidentally--is so much less elegant in comparison to `?` and `!` for
>> optionals (not that `Result` should use the exact such syntax for a
>> distinct operation)). It would be a shame to transpose a third-party
>> `Result` to the standard library without considering if any such tweaks
>> would substantially improve ergonomics, interconversion with Optional and
>> throws, etc.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Jon Shier via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Swift-Evolution:
>>> I’ve written a first draft of a proposal to add Result<T> to the
>>> standard library by directly porting the Result<T> type used in Alamofire
>>> to the standard library. I’d be happy to implement it (type and tests for
>>> free!) if someone could point me to the right place to do so. I’m not
>>> including it directly in this email, since it includes the full
>>> implementation and is therefore quite long. (Discourse, please!)
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jshier/swift-evolution/blob/master/propos
>>> als/0187-add-result-to-the-standard-library.md
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jon Shier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
