> On Mar 17, 2016, at 6:53 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 1. We have to add @implicitly_unwrapped attribute to the proposal. I hate >> implied "attributes", available only to compiler. The wording needs to be >> reformulated in terms of this attribute > > Agree. > >> 2. We need to encourage using the attribute instead of `!`. >> 3. In the future, `!` can be removed entirely and leave only the attribute. >> But not for now > > Disagree. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, IUOs are going to become less > common on Apple platforms, but they are here to stay in Swift as a whole.
I agree with this. > >> In order to do this, I suggest finding a concise name for it. Like @IUO, but >> possibly more readable > > I do agree that we should look for a shorter, better name. I suggest > `@autounwrap`, by analogy with `@autoclosure`. Both features insert invisible > syntax at usage sites to make an expression of one type appear to be an > expression of a different type. > > (Actually, I think that `@autoclosure` is a great analogy for this feature in > many respects.) The similarity to @autoclosure is a good observation. It sounds like an explicit attribute name may be a necessary part of this proposal rather than a thought for the future. So far we’ve heard: @implicitly_unwrapped @iuo @autounwrap — Chris Willmore _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
