[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Introducing the "Unwrap or Die" operator to the standard library

[Adrian Zubarev]

Well the main debate is that, we all want early access to a feature that will be part of Swift as soon as `Never` becomes the bottom type. When this happens the `??` will automatically support the pitched behavior. Until then if we all agree that we should add it now in a way that will not break anything we can simply add an overload to `??` as I previously showed.  

There is no need for `!!` because it will fade in the future. If you think of `Never` as a bottom type now then `??` will already make total sense. The default value for T from rhs might be T or Never.  

@erica: the rhs argument should be called something like `noreturnOrError` and not `defaultValue`. And we should keep in mind that when Never becomes the bottom type we have to remove that overload from stdlib, because otherwise it will be ambiguous.  

---  

On the other hand if we tackle a different operator then we should rething the 'default value operator' because the second ? signals an optional but not a non-optional or an inplicit unwrapped operator. In that case I personally thing ?! would make more sense. Unwrap or (non-optional | IUO | trap/die)

--  
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail  

Am 28. Juni 2017 um 18:13:18, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution (swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)) schrieb:

>  
> It's hard for me to articulate, but "foo !! message" feels a little too much like a Perl-ism for my taste. Objectively that's not a great criticism on its own, but I just don't like the "smell" of an operator that takes a value on one side and a string for error reporting purposes on the other. It doesn't feel like it fits the style of Swift. I prefer a version that makes the call to fatalError (and thus, any other non-returning handler) explicitly written out in code.
>  
> So, if the language can already support this with ?? and autoclosure/Never as was shown above, I'd rather see that added to the language instead of a new operator that does the same thing (and is actually less general).  
>  
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 8:52 AM Jacob Williams via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)> wrote:
> > I feel that the !! operator would be necessary for indicating that if this fails then something went horribly wrong somewhere and we should throw the fatalError. This allows the inclusion of optimizations using -Ounchecked and is clear that this is an operation that could result in a runtime error just like force unwrapping.  
> >  
> > If we want code clarity and uniformity, then I think !! Is much better than ?? because it goes right along with the single ! Used for force unwrapping. However, this does depend on if the operator would be returning some kind of error that would cause the program to exit.  
> >  
> > I think the ?? operator should not cause a program to exit early. It goes against optional unwrapping principles. I think code could get very confusing if some ? would return nil/a default value, and others would be causing your program to crash and exit. The ? operators should always be classified as safe operations.  
> >  
> > > On Jun 28, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Ben Cohen via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)> wrote:  
> > >  
> > > > On Jun 28, 2017, at 8:27 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)> wrote:  
> > > > Count me in as a strong proponent of ?? () -> Never. We don't need to burden the language with an extra operator just for that.
> > >  
> > > You could say the same about ??  
> > >  
> > > The concern that an additional operator (and one that, IMO, fits well into existing patterns) is so burdensome seems way overweighted in this discussion IMO.  
> > >  
> > > Adding the operator, and encouraging its use, will help foster better understanding of optionals and legitimate use of force-unwrapping in a way that I don’t think `?? fatalError` could.  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > swift-evolution mailing list
> > > swift-evolution at swift.org(mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org)
> > > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170628/5a22d79e/attachment.html>