With the introduction of SE-0170 the behavior is a bit more predicable: The rule is that if the value would not loose mantissa representation or significant bits of the representation it will bridge to the target type in all scenarios, no matter if it is created in objc or in swift.
> On May 19, 2017, at 9:00 PM, David Waite via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > When I call such a mapped Swift API that expects an Int? parameter from Objc > with a NSNumber initialized with 3.5, what should happen? NSNumber(value: 3.5) as? Int == nil But NSNumber(value: 3.5).intValue == 3 > > [NSNumber uint64value: UINT64_MAX] ? NSNumber(value: UInt64.max) as? Int == nil > > What about the float 1e100? NSNumber(value: 1.0e100) as? Int == nil > > > What about boolean 'true’? NSNumber(value: true) as? Int == 1 > > NaN? NSNumber(value: Double.nan) as? Int == nil > > -DW > >> On May 19, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I have to side with Kenny on this one. I would find losing nil vs 0 more >> surprising than NSInteger vs NSNumber. In fact, I was surprised that this >> doesn’t already cross to a NSNumber. That would be the behavior I expect. >> >> Thanks, >> Jon >> >> >>> On May 16, 2017, at 11:51 AM, Kenny Leung via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> But my argument *is* that optionality is an obvious way to make that >>> decision. >>> >>> If I was writing in pure Objective-C (outside the context of Swift), >>> sometimes I would have methods that take or return int, and sometimes I >>> would have methods that take or return NSNumber. There is never really a >>> surprise as to why. So why would there be a surprise when bridging from >>> Swift? >>> >>> -Kenny >>> >>> >>>> On May 15, 2017, at 7:24 AM, T.J. Usiyan <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The argument is not about whether or not it should come through as an >>>> object. The argument is about the fact that *sometimes* it would come >>>> through as an object and other times it would not. Optionality isn't an >>>> obvious way to make that decision. >>>> >>>> TJ >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Charlie Monroe <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> This is not much of an argument given that NSString is an object in ObjC >>>> (heap-allocated), String in Swift is an struct and also given that most >>>> NSNumber's nowadays are not really allocated, but just tagged pointers. >>>> >>>> Given that NSNumber is immutable, you get the value semantics anyway... >>>> >>>>> On May 15, 2017, at 1:09 PM, T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> My understanding of the reasoning is that `NSNumber` is an object in >>>>> Objective-C and not a struct. There is already one level of decision when >>>>> translating to objc in that regard. Switching between reference >>>>> semantics/class and value semantics because of optionality is surprising. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Kenny Leung via swift-evolution >>>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> > On May 12, 2017, at 9:56 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution >>>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Exporting Int? as an optional NSNumber does not feel obvious and >>>>> > idiomatic when we would export Int as NSInteger. It feels like >>>>> > reaching for an arbitrary solution. >>>>> >>>>> I don’t understand this reasoning. I’ve had cause to distinguish 0 from >>>>> null in both Objective-C and Java, and I would do exactly the same thing. >>>>> >>>>> -Kenny >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[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
