For expressions whose type is definitely non-optional, it makes sense to verbally suggest both ! and ?? (and/or !! – was that accepted?), and it’s probably best to insert ! when the fixit is accepted. For expressions whose type is undetermined, but which need some form of Optional handling, it would be best for the compiler to assume the type is meant to be optional and insert a ?.
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Erica Sadun via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 2:11 AM, Víctor Pimentel via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 14 Jul 2017, at 08:05, Rod Brown via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 14 Jul 2017, at 2:36 pm, Robert Bennett via swift-evolution >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> When writing Swift code, it is not uncommon to forget to unwrap optionals. >>>> The compiler will offer a fixit, telling you you must insert either a ? or >>>> a !. However, when you accept the fixit, ! is inserted (at least, it is >>>> for me in Xcode 8.3). >>> When you treat an optional as non-optional, the compiler has no way to do a >>> fixit that would appropriately handle the optional. Felix made a good >>> example. The only direct fixit would be a force unwrap. If you used “?” >>> then your non-optional use would turn into an optional and your parameter >>> would generally be non-optional. The fixit is just explicitly doing what >>> you implicitly expected it to do. >>> >>>> >>>> Ideally the fixit would default to ? because this is the preferred option; >>>> ! is often a sign of non-Swifty code and does not interact well with >>>> idiomatic Swift constructs such as if-let-(as?), guard-let-(as?)-else, >>>> etc. Also I think it’s safe to say that fixits should not err on the side >>>> of crashing at runtime. >>> >>> " ! is often a sign of non-Swifty code “ >>> I would strongly challenge this assumption. Many core team members have >>> commented about appropriate uses of the ! operator. It shouldn’t be used >>> lightly, but it’s there for a reason and it most definitely isn’t >>> “non-swifty”. >> >> I think it's not a farfetched assumption to imply that if the compiler >> encounters that code, the programmer didn't realize or remember that they >> were dealing with optionals. >> >> If the compiler suggests to force unwrap that expression, it is also fair to >> assume that most inexperience programmers will just apply that fix it. A >> more experience programmer can decide whether to force unwrap it or to >> handle the nil case in any other way, depending on the context and code >> style. >> >> Personally, I'd prefer that the compiler didn't encourage so much to use >> force unwrapping, not because I think that it has no use, but because I >> think that newbies should not learn that pattern first. >> >> Surely, if I were new to the language and the compiler kept doing that fix >> it, I would think that it's "the way" to deal with optionals. >> >> What would I prefer? At least, for the fix it to provide several options, >> more or less in this order: >> >> - checked unwrap (if applies) >> - if let >> - guard let >> - force unwrap > > Unfortunately, I think `!` *is* the proper fix-it here. The mechanisms to > insert conditional binding, for example, are too unwieldy a tool at the many > arbitrary places where an optional is used in place of a non-optional. I > believe introducing an unwrap-or-die operator in parens (see > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/729) would provide a better > fixit: > > * A sophisticated developer is unlikely to use fix-its as a blunt instrument > to make code work. Their use of `!` can be appropriate and, in their hands, > unlikely to be fixit-driven. > > * The unsophisticated developer is better served with `!!`, which > self-documents the safety issue and can be further evaluated for refactoring, > supporting safer learner patterns. Unlike the other approaches for > conditional binding, `!!` is fix-it friendly. > > -- E > > _______________________________________________ > 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
