> On Feb 6, 2017, at 11:08, Daniel Duan <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Feb 6, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I think I see Alex's point here. Optional chaining is still intended to be a >> substitute for Objective-C's nil-swallowing, and therefore foo?.bar() should >> not warn if 'bar' has a discardable result, even though there is semantic >> information about whether the method was actually called. I think that of >> the three things under consideration here: >> >> 1. foo?.bar() should not warn >> 2. foo.map(baz) should warn >> 3. Ternaries should be consistent with non-ternaries >> > > I 100% agree with this analysis. > >> #1 is the most important, at least to me. The Swift 3 change was to >> sacrifice #2 in favor of #3, which I'm not sure I would have done, but I >> wouldn't want to sacrifice #1 in favor of #2. >> >> I wouldn't mind the model of the type being '@discardableResult >> Optional<Void>' or whatever, but I think that's probably more work than >> anyone wants to sign up for. > > I’ll give this a go and report back. *crosses fingers*
I suspect this will entail making a new sugared type kind and then threading it carefully through the constraint solver (hence why I said it's probably more work than you want to take on). Jordan
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
