> On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> I'm not sure this is a great idea yet. Punishing IUOs with verbose syntax >>> may feel good, but runs the danger of making projected Swift interfaces >>> from unaudited C and Objective-C APIs too noisy to read. Our current syntax >>> was motivated by a strong desire to ensure that Swift interfaces remain >>> readable, even for foreign APIs that haven't been annotated with Swift >>> interop in mind yet. >> >> I don’t think that Brent and I are suggesting that attribute syntax for IUOs >> should be mandatory or even recommended, merely that it should exist. That >> way we can talk about the feature in terms of the underlying attribute-based >> representation without it being some hidden, exclusively compiler-internal >> thing. > > That's my position as well. I will probably almost always use the `!` sugar, > but when I'm thinking about the feature, and perhaps occasionally when I'm > doing something kind of tricky with it, having the desugared Optional + > @autounwrap representation may come in handy.
I’ve updated the proposal to more explicitly call out the need for a named decl attribute. The name is subject to further discussion, of course: https://github.com/cwillmor/swift-evolution/blob/9dce2e8d6c1b27f3370e8c2ba8d5b549ab8f6954/proposals/0000-abolish-iuo.md — Chris Willmore _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
