<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:32 AM Jon Shier <<a href="mailto:jon@jonshier.com">jon@jonshier.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><span class="m_7577137149950176343Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>That’s been an argument against Result for 2 years now. The usefulness of the type, even outside of whatever asynchronous language support the core team comes up with, perhaps this year, perhaps next year, is still very high. Even as something that just wraps throwing functions, or otherwise exists as a local, synchronous value, it’s still very useful as way to encapsulate the value/error pattern.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is one of the parts that concerns me, actually. The beauty of Swift's error design is that function results denote expected/successful outcomes and thrown errors denote unexpected/erroneous outcomes. Since they are different, each is handled through its own language constructs, and since the language itself supports it (rather than being entirely type-based), you don't have the proliferation of unwrapping boilerplate that you have with Result<>.</div><div><br></div><div>In our own code bases, I actively discourage the use of Result<> in that way, because it tries to cram both of those concepts into the expected/successful outcomes slot in the language. For asynchronous APIs that's somewhat unavoidable today, but if that's going to change, I'd rather the language focus on a way that's consistent with other error handling already present in Swift.</div><div><br></div><div>Adding an API to the standard library is the core team saying "this is blessed as something around which we support APIs being designed." IMO, I'd prefer it if the language did *not* bless two disparate ways of communicating error outcomes but rather converged on one.</div><div><br></div><div>IMO, "things aren't happening fast enough" isn't great motivation for putting something permanently into the standard library or the language without considering the context of other things going on around it. If you're going to propose something that overlaps with asynchronous APIs, it only helps your case if you can discuss how it can integrate—rather than collide—with those efforts.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">That pattern will likely never go away. Additionally, having the Result type in the standard library removes a source of conflict between all other Result implementations, which are becoming more common.</div><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 2, 2017, at 2:26 PM, Tony Allevato <<a href="mailto:tony.allevato@gmail.com" target="_blank">tony.allevato@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_7577137149950176343Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Given that the Swift team is currently working on laying the groundwork for asynchronous APIs using an async/await model, which would presumably tie the throwing cases more naturally into the language than what is possible using completion-closures today, are we sure that this wouldn't duplicate any efforts there or be made obsolete through other means?<div><br></div><div>In other words, while Result<> can be a very useful foundational component on its own, I think any proposal for it can't be made in isolation, but very much needs to consider other asynchronous work going on in the language.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 11:15 AM Jon Shier via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">You don’t lose it, it’s just behind `Error`. You can cast out whatever strong error type you need without having to bind an entire type to it generically. If getting a common error type out happens a lot, I usually add a convenience property to `Error` to do the cast for me. Plus, having to expose an entire new error wrapper is just a non starter for me and doesn’t seem necessary, given how Result is currently used in the community.<div><br></div><div><br></div><div></div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div>Jon</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 2, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Dave DeLong <<a href="mailto:swift@davedelong.com" target="_blank">swift@davedelong.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_7577137149950176343m_-350027757980587147Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div>I think I’d personally rather see this done with a generic error as well, like:</div><div><br></div><div>enum GenericResult<T, E: Error> {</div><div><span class="m_7577137149950176343m_-350027757980587147Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>case success(T)</div><div><span class="m_7577137149950176343m_-350027757980587147Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>case failure(E)</div><div>}</div><div><br></div>And a typealias:<div><br></div><div>typealias Result<T> = GenericResult<T, AnyError></div><div><br></div><div>This would require an “AnyError” type to type-erase a specific Error, but I’ve come across many situations where a strongly-typed error is <i>incredibly </i>useful, and I’d be reluctant to see that thrown away.</div><div><br></div><div>Dave<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 2, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Jon Shier via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_7577137149950176343m_-350027757980587147Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">Swift-Evolution:<div><span class="m_7577137149950176343m_-350027757980587147Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>I’ve written a first draft of a proposal to add Result<T> to the standard library by directly porting the Result<T> type used in Alamofire to the standard library. I’d be happy to implement it (type and tests for free!) if someone could point me to the right place to do so. I’m not including it directly in this email, since it includes the full implementation and is therefore quite long. (Discourse, please!) </div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/jshier/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0187-add-result-to-the-standard-library.md" target="_blank">https://github.com/jshier/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0187-add-result-to-the-standard-library.md</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks, </div><div><br></div><div>Jon Shier</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>swift-evolution mailing list<br><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div></div>