[swift-evolution] [Design Question] Unexpected forced optional unwrapping behavior
mikehenson at gmail.com
Fri Jan 8 19:56:35 CST 2016
I've spent some time exploring different aspects of the language's type
system and came across a case where I wanted to know the type of the thing
an optional might hold, if it exists. The direct type of an optional
variable is, unsurprisingly, an optional:
> var example: String? = "example"
example: String? = "example"
$R1: String?.Type = String?
Ok, that didn't work. What if I dereference?
$R2: String.Type = String
Ok. What if the optional doesn't currently have a value? Does this still
> example = nil
$R3: String.Type = String
That's odd. I expected it not work, given how forced unwrapping of nil
optionals usually turns out.
Is this explicitly intended behavior, something that really shouldn't work
and shouldn't be relied on, or... other?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution