Well I only used the previously mentioned names, in my codebase I use `isFalse`
for that situation which is better then `== false` in my opinion.
Am 13. Januar 2018 um 20:06:21, Karl Wagner (razie...@gmail.com) schrieb:
> On 12. Jan 2018, at 20:54, Alejandro Martinez via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>
Yeah so do I. ! is a very narrow character and totally changes the meaning of
the logic.
That said, I can’t come up with a clearer name than “== false”. inverted()
isn’t helpful. toggle() on a mutable Bool is good, though.
- Karl
> 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
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
