ljw1004 posted:

rjmcall Please remove this feature, and instead implement a method ".HasValue" on Optional<T>. That way we can write code that's easy to read:

rjmccall posted:

This is actually already in the works, although I'm not sure how we're going to spell the property yet. (Other than definitely not using C# casing.)

Ender.uNF posted:

rdar://17782662 filed to add the ability to export a module's internal members to another specified module. This makes unit tests on internal members much easier and allows two modules by the same developer to cooperate as if they were the same module, but without making that part of the public API.

See also: http://www.russbishop.net/swift-testing-privates

Axiem posted:

Yes, this is 100% the most annoying thing about access modifiers right now. Right after getting the beta 4 and fixing the fact that Double no longer auto-converts to CGFloat, I tried running tests and ended up with an awful lot of failures because I need to sprinkle "public" everywhere.

dizzywhip posted:

As an alternative to manually labeling everything as public, you can group your public API into an extension labeled as public, and everything inside that extension will default to public.

Abjad Soup posted:

I HAVE A BUG TO REPORT!!

The blogposts from the Swift Blog's RSS feed are almost wholly unformatted, and in this most recent blog post about Access Control, it completely omitted the example code and instead had "Here is an example class that is part of a framework: [view code in blog] ". In the xml source I can see there are some extra spaces where bullet points should be, but there's not even a newline before them (and of course the rendered output has all contiguous whitespace condensed anyway). I want to read the entire blogpost in my RSS reader, not a seeming copy-paste job that excludes example code!

Here's the current RSS feed itself, for the curious: http://pastebin.com/KSjuf2jE

I know that the workings of the Swift Blog's RSS feed are of utmost importance to you rjmccall, so uh, you're welcome

_{I really enjoy reading about all this stuff and I haven't filed a bugreport in years and years -- should this actually be a radar?}

Ender.uNF posted:

P.S. I'm moving to the SF/Bay area soon, joining a startup and moving to iOS full time. Can I be part of the cool kids club now?

Flobbster posted:

Enjoy the huge rent. I thought I could escape it in San Jose (and did for a year!) but it eventually caught up down here too. Now there's no escaping it.

Ender.uNF posted:

Oh yes, it's crazy. I'm going to try to buy if possible. I just can't pay 3000-4000 a month for an apartment.

quote:

operator infix !! { associativity left }

@infix public func !!<T>(left: T?, right: T?) -> T? {
return left ? left! : right
}

@infix public func !!<T>(left: T?, right: @auto_closure ()->T) -> T {
return left ? left! : right()
}

var x:String?
var y:String?
let z = "alt"

let a = x !! y !! z

Ender.uNF posted:

code:

var p2 = 0
var p3 = 0
let ret = demangleSimpleClass(namen, &p2, &p3)

rjmccall posted:

rjmccall posted:

ultramiraculous posted:

Is this abomination rjmccall approved now or something?

rjmccall posted:

Right now? Definitely not. And the overhead of automatic memory management will limit us from ever exactly matching C on all workloads. On the other hand, I think eventually we'll have a complete enough set of language/implementation tools to allow users to reliably optimize away overheads when it matters without massively distorting their program.

xilni posted:

Is this one of the reasons they're not rushing to rewrite Mail.app etc... in Swift?

rjmccall posted:

Right now? Definitely not. And the overhead of automatic memory management will limit us from ever exactly matching C on all workloads.

feedmegin posted:

Makes sense; safety costs. Presumably as a statically compiled language with a decent optimisation backend you should end up coming pretty close, though?

Kallikrates posted:

Something that I sometimes did in Objective-C was return or accept specific types that conform to specific protocols.
Using Generics we can do this for function parameters (I think its analogous) but how do we enforce this on the return side?

code:

- (NSObject <Foo> *)returnsSomethingThatConforms;

code:

//compiler error
func returnsSomethingThatConforms() -> (T: NSObject where U: Foo) {}
//compiler error
func returnsSomethingThatConforms() -> (NSObject, Foo) {}

Most of my googling and reading of documentation only answers the parameter side of the question. Did I find my first swift radar?

Kallikrates posted:

code:

//compiler error
func returnsSomethingThatConforms() -> (T: NSObject where U: Foo) {}
//compiler error
func returnsSomethingThatConforms() -> (NSObject, Foo) {}

Kallikrates posted:

The example is derived..., the object implementing the protocol is not a plain NSObject. On the API consumer side, knowing its class X implements protocol Y is helpful when you want to call functions of class X and protocol Y without having to cast back and forth between "id<Foo>" and "X" when I get back to my computer with Xcode Beta ill try (protocol<NSObject, Foo>) but I don't think its a solution because the NSObject protocol only exists for base NSObject, not subclasses,

Another example:

code:

extension CustomNSOperationClass {
  func returnsSomethingThatConforms() -> (CustomNSOperationClass, FooProtocol) {

  }
}
//given the return type no as? should be needed
CustomNSOperationClass.returnsSomethingThatConforms().start().fooProtocolMethod()

The major use case is extensions/categories that add protocol conformance.

Another option would be to create a protocol of all the public methods/functions of a class and then use protocol composition, but that's not necessary in Obj-c so I don't think it should be needed in Swift.

Axiem posted:

This would be a little better if when I got the message that my class doesn't implement all my superclass's required members, I had a way of seeing what I don't actually implement.