This workaround looks better, but it is still workaround.
I can trust myself this month and month after that. But I will look at this
code after a while (or someone else will look at it) and will not remember/know
that there has to be some initializations.
I am building tools that handle some common cases of synchronization and etc.
These tools must be robust and beautiful so I can advice anyone to use them.
None will adopt these tools if they introduce some new points of failure.
> On Nov 4, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <br...@architechies.com> wrote:
>
> (Crossposted to swift-users; swift-dev is for development of the Swift
> compiler and standard library, not discussions about how to use Swift.)
>
>> On Nov 4, 2016, at 2:57 AM, Anton Mironov via swift-dev
>> <swift-...@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> // This is workaround #1
>> // It looks bad for 2 reasons: implicitly unwrapped optional, it is easy to
>> forget to initialize object
>> class ContextB : Context {
>> var object: ObjectInContext!
>>
>> init() {
>> self.object = ObjectInContext(context: self)
>> }
>> }
>
> Try this:
>
> class ContextB: Context {
> private var _object: ObjectInContext?
> var object: ObjectInContext { return _object! }
>
> init() {
> _object = nil
> // Note that self is now fully initialized
> _object = ObjectInContext(context: self)
> }
> }
>
> As long as you can trust yourself not to forget to initialize `_object`
> within `init()` or mutate `_object` within private scope, this is about as
> safe as anything you could hope for.
>
> --
> Brent Royal-Gordon
> Architechies
>
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
