On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Charles Srstka <cocoa...@charlessoft.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> `let value = (x == nil) ? nil : foo.bar(x: x)` isn't so bad, is it? You
> could even write a custom operator to sugar it.
>
>
> It’s distasteful, due to the need to use the force-unwrap operator. In
> cases like this, I usually end up writing:
>
> let value: Foo? = nil
>
> if let x = x {
> value = foo.bar(x: x)
> } else {
> value = nil
> }
>
> or:
>
> let value: Foo? = {
> if let x = x {
> return foo.bar(x: x)
> } else {
> return nil
> }
> }()
>
> Both of which are unwieldy, but necessary to avoid the use of !.
>
You are arguing that the force unwrap operator ! is, per se, distasteful?
>
> I wouldn’t mind something like an overload on the ternary operator:
>
> let value = x? ? foo.bar(x: x) : nil
>
> in which a ? after the ternary condition indicates that it is an optional
> to be unwrapped for the positive condition.
>
> Charles
>
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
