I did not mind sending messages to nil being essentially a NoOp so calling map on an optional and have the function only execute if the value included inside the optional is not nil is kind of reminding of that ;). Although it is a lot wordier and not really in line with how we force people to deal with nil in then general case --> you better unwrap or use optional chaining.
It feels almost like this use of map is something that should come in one of those web adverts "See the 10 things Apple does not want you to do with Optionals, but made these coders £40,000" ;). Sent from my iPhone > On 12 Jul 2016, at 17:37, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Liam. The particular issue we’ve seen when exploring this feature is that > it’s unclear whether or not other arguments get evaluated: > > print(a.foo()?, b.bar()?, c.baz()?) > > If b.bar() turns out to be nil, does c.baz() still get evaluated? > > (I’m pretty sure the right answer is “yes”, but it’s still something that > should be addressed explicitly.) > > The added complexity and the existence of Optional.map led us not to pursue > this direction in the past. > > Jordan > > >> On Jul 12, 2016, at 07:16, Liam Stevenson via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Optional chaining is one of the great, useful features of Swift. It can be >> used “for querying and calling properties, methods, and subscripts on an >> optional that might currently be nil,” to quote Apple's "The Swift >> Programming Language.” However, often it is necessary to call a function, >> subscript, or initializer conditionally based on if one or more parameters >> are nil. The proposed solution is to allow a question mark (?) to be placed >> after an optional value wished to be used as a parameter. Then, the >> function, initializer, or subscript will be called if and only if the >> parameter's value is not nil. If it has a return type, it will return an >> optional, which will be nil if the parameter is nil. >> >> Old way (with seemingly unnecessary if statement considering the flexibility >> provided by optional chaining): >> var arr = ["apples", "oranges", "pears", "bananas"] >> let index: Int? = 2 >> >> var removedElement: String? >> if let index = index { >> removedElement = arr.removeAtIndex(index) //sets removedElement >> to "pears" >> } >> Using this proposal: >> var arr = ["apples", "oranges", "pears", "bananas"] >> let index: Int? = 2 >> >> var removedElement: String? >> removedElement = arr.removeAtIndex(index?) //sets removedElement to >> “pears" >> Another similar example: >> Old way: >> var arr = ["apples", "oranges", "pears", "bananas"] >> let index: Int? = nil >> >> var removedElement: String? >> if let index = index { >> removedElement = arr.removeAtIndex(index) //never called >> } >> Using this proposal: >> var arr = ["apples", "oranges", "pears", "bananas"] >> let index: Int? = nil >> >> var removedElement: String? >> removedElement = arr.removeAtIndex(index?) //removeAtIndex is never >> called, and removedElement is set to nil >> >> What does everyone think of this proposal? It is additive so it will not >> break any existing code, and in the future it will provide conciseness and >> clarity since the syntax is similar to the existing optional chaining syntax. >> >> View the full proposal on GitHub here: >> https://github.com/liam923/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/NNNN-extend-optional-chaining-to-function-initializer-and-subscript-parameters.md >> >> Liam >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
