.none or a more appropriate keyword like “none” (imo) Brandon
> On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > It's been pointed out before that Optional being an enum type is treated like > an implementation detail. Currently, it is possible to teach the concept of > Optional without introducing enum types or generics. How would you do so > after elimination of nil? > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Антон Жилин <swift-evolution@swift.org > <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > (No joking) > Points: > > 1. When nil was added to the language, we could not infer enumeration type: > if x != Optional.none { ... } > > Now it looks like this: > if x != .none { ... } > > If at this point we had a proposal to add nil as a replacement for .none, > would we accept it? > > 2. nil is very generic, it only approximately allows to express the > intentions. > In case of Optional, .none is clearer. In case of JSON processing, .null is > clearer. In case of a semantically nullable struct, NilLiteralConvertible > usually goes to default constructor. > > 3. Too many "empty" things: .none, nil; NSNull, Void, NoReturn types. > > 4. There should be a single consistent terminology: no value in Swift equals > none. > > - Anton > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
