> On Oct 3, 2016, at 5:49 PM, Kevin Ballard via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 03:18 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >> We had this at one point, but we took it out because people would forget to >> test the nil case. I think `?? ""` or `?? nil` really is the best answer >> here. > > But you can't write that, unless you're dealing specifically with an > Optional<String>. If you try you'll get an error: > > unnamed.swift:2:19: error: binary operator '??' cannot be applied to operands > of type 'Int?' and 'String' > print("x: \(x ?? "nil")") > ~ ^ ~~~~~ > unnamed.swift:2:19: note: overloads for '??' exist with these partially > matching parameter lists: (T?, @autoclosure () throws -> T), (T?, > @autoclosure () thro > ws -> T?) > print("x: \(x ?? "nil")") > ^ > This leads to writing code like "… \(x.map(String.init(describing:)) ?? > "nil")" which is pretty gross.
I think that if we're going to add this warning we should make it possible to provide a string as an alternative. It seems like it should be possible to build a ?? operator with a (T?, String) -> _StringInterpolationSomething signature that works only in a string interpolation context. There are some types that aren't trivially constructible, or don't have clear alternatives for the nil case. Other times it might just not make sense to build a new instance simply to turn it into a string. If we're going to make people provide an alternative for optionals in this otherwise simple-to-use construct, let's make it simple to do so. This is undoubtedly a more complex approach that could be considered separately, but I think it would be a valuable part of how developers could transition their code. Nate
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
