[swift-evolution] Initializers

Sat Feb 4 11:31:57 CST 2017

No, but you can declare it as:

lazy var myStateDerivedProperty: Int = self.myStateManager.property

Of course, there are still more complex scenarious that require IUOs. For example anything that gets loaded from the UI (currently marked as @IBOutlet). IUOs are definitely useful for items that will be nonnil 99% of the object's lifetime, but don't necessarily need to be 100% of the time.

> On Feb 4, 2017, at 6:22 PM, Rod Brown via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> Dependency Injection does sort out this case, you're right.
> 
> One case it doesn't fix is where your initialised value depends on something within your superclass to be created first to derive your initialising value.
> 
> class MyBaseClass {
>     let myStateManager: StateManager
> 
>     init() {
>         // sets up stateManager
>     }
> }
> 
> class MySubclass: MyBaseClass {
>      var myStateDerivedProperty: Int!
> 
>      override init() {
>          super.init()
> 
>          myStateDerivedProperty = // derive state from myStateManager
>      }
> }
> 
> In this case, the writer cannot initialise their state derived properties until the superclass has completed its initialization because it is waiting on the stateManager to derive its initial state.
> 
> This is a somewhat contrived example but I've actually found myself with similar patterns where I use other frameworks, where the default is either not defined in documentation or the object I require as part of initialising the property does not exist until after the initialisation.
> 
> Rod
> 
> On 5 Feb 2017, at 4:04 am, Jean-Daniel <mailing at xenonium.com <mailto:mailing at xenonium.com>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> Le 4 févr. 2017 à 16:52, Rod Brown via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> a écrit :
>>> 
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> 
>>> I think this comes back to the idea that a lot of people in the wider Swift community hold that Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals are “bad” and “discouraged", and therefore shouldn’t be used. There seems to have been much pushback on Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals in the Swift 3 timeframe, to try and remove them as much as possible.
>>> 
>>> I definitely see this as a valuable use for them. While an integer is an extremely lightweight example of this, when it could include creating entire object graphs multiple times due to initialiser behaviour, or because you won’t know the correct state of a variable until *after* initialisation has occurred on the superclass, this is a valuable example where IUOs are really the only alternative for performance or correctness reasons.
>> 
>> IUO are useful to workaround poorly designed class. As already said, you example could be rewrite like follow to avoid any useless computation
>> 
>> class A {
>> 	let x: Int
>> 	init(_ x: Int = 3) {
>> 		self.x = x
>> 	}
>> }
>> 
>> class B : A {
>> 	override init() {
>> 		…
>> 		super.init(1)
>> 	}
>> }
>> 
>> No useless initialization of x, and no need to use IUO. Is it a suffisent reason to keep them in the language ? Anyway, as long as we need them to usefully use IBOutlet, I’m pretty sure they are not going anywhere.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps this is an area where the Swift Core Team could provide guidance to the community? Do the Core Team see IUOs as “bad” outright, and destined to go away when possible, or are they a tool with specific uses that look to be supported into the future?
>>> 
>>> - Rod
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 4 Feb 2017, at 5:40 am, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 31, 2017, at 3:52 AM, Victor Petrescu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. Joe Groff says there is already a backdoor of sorts ("There already is a backdoor of sorts. This is one of the intended use cases for implicitly-unwrapped optionals. If you don't want to be hassled by DI, declare a property as T! type, and it will be implicitly initialized to nil, and trap if you try to use it as an unwrapped T without initializing it first."): I'm assuming by T you mean generics. If that is true that may already solve the problem but... generics are a new concept for me (first time I really encountered and used them is now, in swift) but to my understanding their role is to deal with cases you don't know the type. Can you please show how to use this to work around the posted issue?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sidenote: There may be another workaround using optionals (Joe Groff answer made it pop in my mind) but... I know the type and value for the variable, it is not optional or nil. Unwrapping each time someone needs it does not look like the best solution to me.
>>>> 
>>>> You don't need to understand generics to use implicitly-unwrapped optionals. By `T!` I was referring to the syntax used to represent them; you would write Int! or String! or whatever in your code. For your example, this would let you avoid having to invoke super.init() before resetting `x`:
>>>> 
>>>> class A {
>>>>      var x:Int! // Int! is nil by default
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> class B : A {
>>>>     override init() {
>>>>          x = 2 // So we can set it here w/o super.init first
>>>>     }
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> print(B().x + 1) // and we don't need to explicitly unwrap it to use it, unlike `Int?`
>>>> 
>>>> You're giving up the static guarantee that `x` has a value, so you'll get a runtime error if you try to use it before it's initialized, but that's the same situation you have in Java, where dereferencing an uninitialized object reference gives an NPE. Whether you want the hard guarantee that `x` is never optional from the compiler, or the convenience of leaving that up to runtime checks, is a call you have to make; Swift defaults to the strong guarantee, but implicitly-unwrapped optional types like Int! are intended to give you an out if the static model is too strict or inefficient.
>>>> 
>>>> -Joe
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20170204/cc80ffbe/attachment.html>