I use this on all of my mutable optional properties, when I have to use
them. It’s just that little extra bit of code I don’t need to write, and it
feels a lot like parameter defaults in use. By surface area, I assume you mean
the fact that it’s an implicit behavior people may need to remember? As
something like that, this seems like a very small one. As for users knowing
about it, I’m guessing it falls into one of those things that people just never
explicitly notice but would likely have a huge impact on anyone with lots of
mutable optionals. Developers from other languages may also assume this
behavior, since it replicates the “nil by default” behavior seen in other
languages.
Ultimately, while I won’t feel this deeply, since I tend to view
mutable optionals as poor practice in Swift, it’s a nice little convenience
that will likely impact everyone using mutable optionals. If you really want to
find out, perhaps run it agains the compatibility suite?
Jon
> On Nov 6, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, the following two declarations are equivalent:
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int?
> }
>
> struct S {
> var x: Int? = nil
> }
>
> 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.
>
> Slava
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
