[swift-evolution] [Idea] "guard not let" optional binding

Vladimir.S svabox at gmail.com
Sat May 14 02:20:57 CDT 2016

-1 as there IMO some confusion between all these `not` and `else` and the 
meaning of the expression at all is not obvious for me: "check that not 
allowed to assign _someExpensiveResult to some instance cachedValue, 
otherwise return something"

This really looks nice, clean and obvious :

guard cachedValue == nil else {
	// here you need just to fast return unwrapped value of cachedValue
	// so, IMO unwrapping it in this block is OK
	return cachedValue!
// here you want to have cachedValue == nil, so you'll need to unwrap 
it(after assignment) in any case.

What I can see as improvement in this direction, something like this:
guard cachedValue == nil else let cachedValue! {
	// here you can use unwrapped cachedValue
	return cachedValue

Hmm... Btw, what about improving in optional binding: It is common to 
shadow optional value name with unwrapped value with same name:

if let value = value {...} // too much noise

What about introduce such syntax:

if let value! {
   // unwrapped value here

Seems like clear and obvious about what does this mean. Opinions? (before I 
drop this to separate thread)

On 14.05.2016 8:52, Karl via swift-evolution wrote:
> If we want to check that an optional has a value and bail if it doesn't, we have the helpful pattern:
>     guard let x = x else { throw SomeError }
> However, it is also fairly common that you want to check that an optional *is* nil, and still bail if it isn’t (maybe using the value that you now know exists), e.g:
>     guard cachedValue == nil else { return cachedValue! }
>     cachedValue = //… expensive calculation
> It seems a little bit “unfair” that we have this lovely clean `let` syntax when checking for Optional.Some, but we to have to do this ugly manual check against nil and explicit unwrap when checking for Optional.None. There is literally no other way to satisfy the guard statement; our optional bindings only go one-way can’t be evaluated.
> What about if we introduced a “not” modifier to optional bindings?
>     guard not let cachedValue = _someExpensiveResult else { return cachedValue }
> This obviously wouldn’t make sense for “if let…” switching, as the variables get bound in the ‘else’ block and the code wouldn’t be very readable. For the special case of a guard statement, though, which only has an ‘else’ block, it does make some sense.
> If we had something like this, certainly in my code, I’d be able to eliminate almost all (maybe even all) remaining force-unwraps of optionals; that’s great! It’d be amazing if the language was expressive enough that you could go without ever having to force-unwrap an optional. And it just makes sense.
> Thoughts?
> Karl
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list