On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Alan Westbrook <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 2017, at 8:02 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > I reject both these notions. Having seen the examples given above, I'm now > leaning towards the conclusion that there is nothing in the way of > explanation in a string that can usefully elaborate upon the very > unambiguous statement that is a force unwrap. > > > That the functionality exists to provide messages with fatal errors is an > indication that they do have some utility. > Not at all. A message is required for `fatalError` simply to explain _what_ the error is. By contrast, it has already been conceded that there is absolutely no confusion as to _what_ the error is in the case of a failed force-unwrap. Rather, as Ben Cohen argued above, the idea behind this proposal is that it is useful to explain the "why"--on the premise that there is some "why" which is not deducible from the "what." My argument is that there is no suitable "why" which can be suitably expressed in a sugared form of a fatalError string argument.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
