[swift-evolution] Allowing `guard let self = self else { … }` for weakly captured self in a closure.

[Jordan Rose]

This has come up before, in a thread called "Proposal: weakStrong self in completion handler closures". I'm still not 100% happy with the syntax, but I like that "guard let" can handle non-Void non-Optional returns well, while 'weakStrong' cannot.

Jordan


> On Jan 5, 2016, at 16:02, Hoon H. via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> Currently, weakly captured `self` cannot be bound to `guard let …` with same name, and emits a compiler error.
> 
> 	class Foo {
> 		func test2(f: ()->()) {
> 			// … 
> 		}
> 		func test1() {
> 			test2 { [weak self] in
> 				guard let self = self else { return } // Error.
> 				print(self)
> 			}
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> Do we have any reason to disallow making `self` back to strong reference? It’d be nice if I can do it. Please consider this case.
> 
> 	class Foo {
> 		func getValue1() -> Int {
> 			return 1234
> 		}
> 		func test3(value: Int) {
> 			print(value)
> 		}
> 		func test2(f: ()->()) {
> 			// … 
> 		}
> 		func test1() {
> 			test2 { [weak self] in
> 				self?.test3(self?.getValue1()) // Doesn't work because it's not unwrapped.
> 
> 				self!.test3(self!.getValue1()) // Considered harmful due to `!`.
> 
> 				guard self != nil else { return }
> 				self!.test3(self!.getValue1()) // OK, but still looks and feels harmful.
> 
> 				guard let self1 = self else { return }
> 				self1.test3(self1.getValue1()) // OK, but feels ugly due to unnecessary new name `self1`.
> 
> 				guard let self = self else { return }
> 				self.test3(self.getValue1()) // OK.
> 
> 			}
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> This also can be applied to `if let` or same sort of constructs.
> 
> Even further, we can consider removing required reference to `self` after `guard let …` if appropriate.
> 
> 	guard let self = self else { return } 
> 	test3(getValue1()) // Referencing to `self` would not be required anymore. Seems arguable.
> 
> I think this is almost fine because users have to express their intention explicitly with `guard` statement. If someone erases the `guard` later, compiler will require explicit self again, and that will prevent mistakes. But still, I am not sure this removal would be perfectly fine.
> 
> I am not sure whether this is already supported or planned. But lacked at least in Swift 2.1.1.
> 
> — Hoon H.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160105/fdafce72/attachment.html>