<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 6, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hi all,<br class=""><br class="">Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:<br class=""><br class="">struct S {<br class=""> var x: Int?<br class="">}<br class=""><br class="">struct S {<br class=""> var x: Int? = nil<br class="">}<br class=""><br class="">That is, mutable bindings of sugared optional type (but not Optional<T>!) always have a default value of ‘nil’. This feature increases the surface area of the language for no good reason, and I would like to deprecate it in -swift-version 5 with a short proposal. Does anyone feel strongly about giving it up? I suspect most Swift users don’t even know it exists.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I don’t have too strong an opinion on this, leaning towards being supportive. That said, I think you underestimate the source breakage it will cause. I have seen <i class="">a lot </i> of code this change will break (albeit in a trivial way that’s easy to migrate).</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">Slava<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>