[swift-evolution] Proposal Sketch: simplify optional unwrapping syntax

[Radosław Pietruszewski]

I was going to suggest something similar (a hard naming problem also):

if has foo {
    // foo is now unwrapped and non-optional
}

guard has foo else { return }

Does the same thing as `let foo = foo` in practice, but places it in a somewhat different mental model. Instead of unwrapping and immediately assigning to a new constant with the same name (which just looks kind of silly, like some magic voodoo ritual), it sort of asserts that we “have” foo (i.e. it’s not nil), and therefore from that point it can just be treated as non-optional.

IMHO this, although introduces a new keyword, makes more sense than trying to reuse “let” in a context where it seems nonsensical. Perhaps this would be closer to Swift’s goals, by reducing very common boilerplate, but without harming clarity in a way adding a new meaning to “let” would.

Curious to hear Chris Lattner’s opinion :-) 

— Radek

> On 19 Dec 2015, at 21:31, Dennis Lysenko via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> What if we made the keyword "unwrap"?
> 
> if unwrap someViewController {
> // now there is a shadowing nonoptional (unwrapped) variable of the same name only within this scope, boiling down to simple syntactic sugar for optional binding and it is fairly clear. 
> }
> 
> 
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 1:31 PM Kevin Wooten via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> As much fun as it to example with foo, I would argue the opposite when you use some real world variable names:
> 
> if let someInterestingViewConroller = someInterestingViewConroller {
> }
> 
> vs
> 
> If let someInterestingViewConroller {
> }
> 
> We know what let does and it should be enough to impart the necessary information for this statement.
> 
> When it comes to newcomers I think you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who'd be able to understand either form without teaching; so not losing much there.
> 
> 
> On Dec 19, 2015, at 10:01 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 11, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Jeff Kelley via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I’ve had similar ideas to this. Instead of ditching the if let syntax altogether, another approach would be to use the existing name if no new name is given, so that this code:
>>> 
>>> 	if let foo = foo { /* use foo */ }
>>> 
>>> could become this code:
>>> 
>>> 	if let foo { /* use foo */ }
>>> 
>>> In both cases, foo is non-optional inside the braces. If you gave it another name with the if let syntax, that would work as it does today.
>> 
>> Hi Jeff,
>> 
>> This is commonly requested - the problem is that while it does help reduce boilerplate, it runs counter to the goal of improving clarity.
>> 
>> -Chris
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>  _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20151219/46030ae9/attachment.html>