We've talked about this before, so I'm going to link directly to my (negative) response from back then: https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20151214/003697.html.
(The rest of the thread is certainly also relevant, but my past opinion is still the one I most identify with here!) Jordan > On Mar 11, 2016, at 12:15 , Dave via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1. > > I’d go so far as to suggest that maybe Optional should conform to > CollectionProtocol, since you can pretty easily think of an Optional as a > collection that can’t have more than one element. > > - Dave Sweeris > >> On Mar 10, 2016, at 7:32 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> While I'm not convinced of the utility or lack thereof, wouldn't it make >> more sense >> to extend `forEach` to support optionals in a similar way that map and >> flapMap >> currently do rather than introduce `ifPresent`? >> >> let y: Int? = 1 >> let n: Int? = nil >> >> _ = y.map({ print($0) }) // works in current Swift >> _ = n.map({ print($0) }) // ditto >> >> y.forEach{ print($0) } // not currently a thing >> n.forEach{ print($0) } // ditto >> >> Just spitballing here. >> >> -- E >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
