> On Dec 7, 2017, at 7:15 AM, Letanyan Arumugam via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > >> On 07 Dec 2017, at 17:02, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com >> <mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 00:37 Letanyan Arumugam via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >>> This seems marginally tolerable, but excessive. >>> >>> Do we mark every usage of a type that can generate precondition failures or >>> fatal errors for reasons other than “no such method?” No, we don’t. >>> >> >> fatalError shouldn’t be used excessively. API surface areas for these types >> are going to be massive (infinite technically). I assume many people are >> going to be writing a lot of code would these types and calling many methods >> and properties which would all essentially have a fatalError. Would you >> consider it good code if the majority of all your types had methods defined >> with fatalError calls. >> >> What is the basis for this claim? Probably the majority of standard library >> methods check preconditions and trap on failure. That is how I write my code >> as well. >> > > I’m talking specifically about fatalError not precondition. fatalError is > something that goes out with production code while precondition is used for > debugging. I think you would agree a shipped program that has many states of > being unrecoverable is not a good design?
You are aware that Int traps on overflow and arrays trap on out of bounds, right? -Chris
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
