[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Type Narrowing

[Charlie Monroe]

I'd personally not make this automatic, but require explicit action from the developer.

In case of nullability, I have previously suggested "nonnil" keyword:

let foo: String? = "Hello World"
guard nonnil foo else {
    return
}

In which way you explicitly request the type narrowing. Or:

let foo: Any
guard foo as String else {
    return
}

I.e. not using "is" which returns a boolean, but using the cast operator, which IMHO makes more sense and prevents from unintentional type narrowing...


> On Nov 7, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Haravikk via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 7 Nov 2016, at 03:52, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com <mailto:clattner at apple.com>> wrote:
>> Introducing flow senstitive type refinement breaks this model because the type of a decl depends not just on its declaration, but on a potentially arbitrary number of imperative checks that occur between the declaration and the use.  This can make it much more difficult to understand code.
> 
> This seems like more of a challenge for the IDE; if it can tap into the type-checker then it can determine what the narrowed type is at any given point in your code, indeed I would expect it to for the purposes of auto-completion anyway. I know you don't necessarily want a language that's reliant on good IDE support, but if you're doing something complex enough where this would become a problem and NOT using a good IDE then it seems kind of like a self-inflicted problem to me.
> 
> Even so there's nothing in this feature that would prevent you from using shadowing if you want to, for example if a block is especially large and you feel it adds clarity.
> 
> Actually though I'd say that for maintenance narrowing may be better, as it can clarify what a type is supposed to be at a given point, and if you break the narrowing then you'll create errors and warning that show you how you've changed the meaning of the code. Consider for example:
> 
> 	func doSomething(value:Int?) {
> 		if (value == nil) { value = 5 } // value is narrow to Optional<Int>.some
> 
> 		// Lots of really important code that never causes value to become nil
> 
> 		print(value!.description)
> 	}
> 
> Say you come back later and decide to remove the conditional at the top, now that value!, though a fair assumption at the time, can cause a runtime failure. With narrowing however you wouldn't have had to force unwrap because of the known non-nil value, but your change will break that, resulting in an error that forces you to fix it.
> 
> 
> I'm still struggling how best to phrase my motivation section; so far I seem to have an increasingly large grab-bag of individual problems that type-narrowing can solve, with no way to put it more succinctly.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161107/2b3a305f/attachment.html>