All I meant is that it’s usage should fade, which is my personal opinion. That said, I didn’t meant to say it should be removed or something. ;)
Am 12. Januar 2018 um 20:54:16, Alejandro Martinez (alexi...@gmail.com) schrieb: I wouldn't go as far as to ask to fade out ! but in all my code I end up doing == false just for readability. That ! knows who to hide himself too well :P On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > I’m not sure if this would be considered or not, but I would like if the > negation operator `!` would fade out. > > If this is ever going to a review then I’d suggest that we add a pair of > functions, one mutating and the other non-mutating. > > extension Bool { > mutating func invert() { > self = !self > } > > func inverted() { > return !self > } > } > > I’d rather use `inverted` instead of `!` because of the readability this > function provides. > > if !items.contains(item) { ... } > > if items.contains(item).inverted() { ... } > > —— > > I personally have some other extensions like: > > extension Bool { > @discardableResult > func whenTrue<T>(execute closure: () throws -> T) rethrows -> T? { > if self { return try closure() } > return nil > } > > @discardableResult > func whenFalse<T>(execute closure: () throws -> T) rethrows -> T? { > if !self { return try closure() } > return nil > } > } > > But this is more a personal preference. > > —— > > That said, if the community is fine with the `invert/inverted` pair then I’d > say go for it ;) > > Am 12. Januar 2018 um 09:14:22, Nate Cook via swift-evolution > (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb: > > > On Jan 12, 2018, at 12:15 AM, Chris Eidhof via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Hey SE! > > When we have a bunch of nested structs: > > struct Sample { > var bar: Bar > } > > struct Bar { > var show: Bool > } > > var foo = Sample(bar: Bar(show: false)) > > It can be repetitive to toggle a deeply nested boolean: > > foo.bar.show = !foo.bar.show // duplication > > I sometimes add a `toggle` extension on `Bool` > > extension Bool { > mutating func toggle() { > self = !self > } > } > > This allows you to write the same code without duplication, and makes the > intent clearer: > > foo.bar.show.toggle() > > > I like it! > > In other languages, I don't think the `toggle` would make as much sense, but > the mutable self makes this very useful. > > After I posted it on Twitter, it turns out I'm not the only one: > https://twitter.com/PublicExtension/status/730434956376346624 > > I would have gone straight to a proposal, but I think we can do some > bikeshedding about the name of `toggle`? > > > Another verb that could work is `invert`. > > The `!` operator that does this is the negation operator, but I think > `negate` could sound to some like "make this false" rather than toggling. > > Nate > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Alejandro Martinez http://alejandromp.com
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution