You wouldn't ever need for it to be non optional as it simply could be
unwrapped with !
That said, there is a decent risk that developers might often get into a habit
of forcibly unwrapping the value when the are removing items from arrays where
they expect it to have content and it unexpectedly doesn't.
I think in regards to arrays, there is a decent history of user/dev
responsibility to run those checks, and if you don't, there is an out of bounds
exception. The check is simply your responsibility. This is designed to promote
you to maintain awareness about how many items are in the array at all times,
as mismanaged arrays are a cesspool of bugs. If we go through and put an
optional here, wouldn't it make sense to make the return values of subscripting
also optional? I think this is an all-or-nothing thing.
> On 7 Jan 2016, at 6:12 AM, James Campbell via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> I personally would love to have it as optional behaviour. Not sure when you
> would ever need it to be non optional ?
>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Max Moiseev <mois...@apple.com> wrote:
>> Ahhh, right.
>>
>> I believe the thinking here is that since this is an avoidable error, it
>> should be handled in the client code with an `if !array.isEmpty { … }`),
>> leaving errors to really exceptional and unexpected conditions.
>> Using optional here will serve the same purpose, IMHO, but instead of
>> preventing the condition, one would have to react to the consequences later.
>> Moreover the type will now be Optional<Element> and it would also be really
>> tempting to write something like `array.removeFirst()!` and have the same
>> trapping behavior.
>>
>> Dave, Dmitri, please correct me if I’m wrong.
>>
>> max
>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:34 AM, James Campbell <ja...@supmenow.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What I mean't is it would be great is if it was a native swift error :) so
>>> we could use try? syntax.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Max Moiseev <mois...@apple.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi James,
>>>>
>>>> I believe this code already handles empty array scenario by failing if the
>>>> precondition is not met.
>>>> Or do you have something else in mind?
>>>>
>>>> max
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 6, 2016, at 9:36 AM, James Campbell via swift-evolution
>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you call removeFirst and the array is empty it would be great if it
>>>>> was optional so it could return nil or at least it threw an error so you
>>>>> could handle that case.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Wizard
>>>>> ja...@supmenow.com
>>>>> +44 7523 279 698
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wizard
>>> ja...@supmenow.com
>>> +44 7523 279 698
>
>
>
> --
> Wizard
> ja...@supmenow.com
> +44 7523 279 698
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
