> On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Patrick Smith via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Xiaodi. Interesting arguments there. It possibly seems a shame to me,
> because it has knock on effects of making other things more complicated. But
> I do see how for the most simple case of unwrapping a single Optional, it
> makes sense.
>
> As much as I would like Brent’s proposal to make things easier to type, I
> think nesting things inside a tuple, where a reader must keep track of which
> input matches which output, could lead to harder to follow code.
Isomehow I think last yesterday's keynote should recast some expectations about
the degree of complexity (richness) the language will ever reach... Somehow
xamarin/c# might endupmbeing swift++ for many people
>
> In my own code I will probably stick to using the long form `guard let a =
> opt1, let b = opt2, let c = opt3 else { … }`, not because I would like typing
> it, but because it will be the most clear.
>
> I would have loved for SE-0099 to have gone with semicolon/newline separators
> so I could write it like this, but alas:
>
> guard
> let a = opt1
> let b = opt2
> let c = opt3
> else {
> …
> }
>
>
> A different thought — maybe if Xcode had autocompletion to unwrap Optionals
> when inside an `if` or `guard` statement it would make things a lot easier.
> Just type the full name of the optional, then press escape, and then code
> will be suggested to unwrap it. Is the pain this proposal targets mainly in
> the writing more than reading?
>
>
> guard opt·|·
>
>
> guard let <#placeholder#> = opt1
>
>
> guard let a = opt1
>
>
> guard let a = opt1, opt2·|·
>
>
> guard let a = opt1, let <#placeholder#> = opt2
>
>
> guard let a = opt1, let b = opt2
>
>
>
> Patrick
>
>> On 14 Jun 2016, at 2:07 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Also, see:
>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/commonly_proposed.md
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> This has been suggested before, I believe. The core team has weighed in
>>> several times; it seemed like there was some disagreement amongst them
>>> whether the current syntax is the wisest, but the concluding statement
>>> seemed uncontroversial: "I don't think it's something we can change."
>>>
>>> Source:
>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.swift.evolution/15879/
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Patrick Smith via swift-evolution
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> If Pyry’s suggestion remained the preferred way of unwrapping a tuple,
>>>> could it also become the only way for unwrapping a single item?
>>>>
>>>> guard case let a? = opt1 {
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Or even shortened for matching optionals only:
>>>>
>>>> guard let a? = opt1 {
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Or even as has often been requested, to keep the same name:
>>>>
>>>> guard let opt1? {
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Multiples:
>>>>
>>>> guard let (opt1?, opt2?, opt3?) {
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> guard let (a?, b?, c?) = (opt1, opt2, opt3) {
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, not trying to derail, but it always has seemed like something
>>>> shorter and more self explanatory could be made for optionals. `?` in
>>>> pattern matching is a special syntax anyway, so why not make this common
>>>> use case easier?
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>> _____________________________
>>>> From: Pyry Jahkola via swift-evolution <[email protected]>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 10:04 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Draft] Tuple-Based Compound Optional
>>>> Binding
>>>> To: Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]>
>>>> Cc: swift-evolution List <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12 Jun 2016, at 14:46, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> guard let (a, b, c) = (opt1, opt2, opt3) else { ... }
>>>>
>>>> You mention `guard case` in the motivation, but I think for the
>>>> uninitiated reader it would be fair to point out that the following
>>>> example already works equivalently, with only a few extra characters:
>>>>
>>>> guard case let (a?, b?, c?) = (opt1, opt2, opt3) else { ... }
>>>>
>>>> Aside of that, it's yet more magic to our `if let` syntax but I don't
>>>> mind, it would be useful at times.
>>>>
>>>> — Pyry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
