This question already has answers here:
Swift variable decorations with "?" (question mark) and "!" (exclamation mark)
(1 answer)
What is the difference between String? and String! (two ways of creating an optional variable)?
(7 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I noticed that some coding examples for Swift declare optional properties in different ways. However, I seem to have trouble trying to tell them apart (or, rather, when to use each.)
class MyClass {
// I believe this can start as nil but should always be set
// once it is.
var optionalProperty1: Type!
// I believe this can be set or nil anytime.
var optionalProperty2: Type?
// I think this is the same as
// var optionalProperty3: Type!
lazy var optionalProperty3: Type
}
How does each one differ from the others and when should each one be used?
var optionalProperty1: Type!
When you're sure you will have value for this property such as timestamp it will be something for sure. And Yes it can be nil too.
var optionalProperty2: Type?
When you're not sure about the value (Or this field is not mandatory) take it as optional for example:- If I make a Person class address can be optional and name will not.
lazy var optionalProperty3: Type
This syntax is wrong you can not declare lazy property in this way. You must assign something to it initially. See below example:
/// First way
lazy var optionalProperty3: String = {
return "Hello"
}()
/// Second way
lazy var optionalProperty4 = "Hello"
A lazy stored property is a property whose initial value is not calculated until the first time it is used. You indicate a lazy stored property by writing the lazy modifier before its declaration. lazy variables are great for things that need to be setup once, then never re-set.
One more thing you really don't need to specify type in modern Swift. Means if you will assign 0 it will be an integer itself, if you will assign 0.0 it will take it as double and same for String, Array etc.
The third declaration is not an optional.
The third one declares a lazy property. Lazy properties will only be initialised when they are first used. Example:
class A {
lazy var a: Int = {
print("hello")
return 1 + 1
}()
}
let a = A()
print(a.a)
If you remove the last line, hello will not be printed.
The first declaration is a implicitly unwrapped optional while the second declaration is a normal optional.
When you access members of a normal optional, you need to unwrap it with ? or !:
var myInt: Int? = ...
print(myInt.description) // doesn't compile, must unwrap
print(myInt!.description) // will crash if myInt is nil
print(myInt?.description) // will print "nil" if myInt is nil
On the other hand, implicitly unwrapped optionals do this implicitly - whenever you try to access a member, it will implicitly unwrap it with ! for you:
var myInt: Int! = ...
print(myInt.description) // equivalent to "myInt!.description"
From Apple's Swift documentation:
Optionals (?): "You use optionals in situations where a value may be absent. An optional represents two possibilities: Either there is a value, and you can unwrap the optional to access that value, or there isn’t a value at all."
Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals (!): "As described above, optionals indicate that a constant or variable is allowed to have “no value”. Optionals can be checked with an if statement to see if a value exists, and can be conditionally unwrapped with optional binding to access the optional’s value if it does exist.
Sometimes it’s clear from a program’s structure that an optional will always have a value, after that value is first set. In these cases, it’s useful to remove the need to check and unwrap the optional’s value every time it’s accessed, because it can be safely assumed to have a value all of the time.
These kinds of optionals are defined as implicitly unwrapped optionals. You write an implicitly unwrapped optional by placing an exclamation mark (String!) rather than a question mark (String?) after the type that you want to make optional.
Implicitly unwrapped optionals are useful when an optional’s value is confirmed to exist immediately after the optional is first defined and can definitely be assumed to exist at every point thereafter. The primary use of implicitly unwrapped optionals in Swift is during class initialization, as described in Unowned References and Implicitly Unwrapped Optional Properties."
Read more at https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/TheBasics.html
Explicitly Unwrapped Variable
var optionalProperty1: Type!
This means that the value should never be nil. It will always be initialized but it is better to use var optionalProperty1: Type
Optional
var optionalProperty2: Type?
This is an optional value, meaning that it can either have a value or be nil. normally to use the value you would need to unwrap it. using either conditional unwrapping or a guard statement...
if let value = optionalProperty2 {
print("optionalProperty2 had a value, value is set")
}
guard let value = optionalProperty2 else {
print("optionalProperty2 was nil value is nil")
}
or you can just check if it has a value and explicitly unwrap it (which is not considered best practice)
if optionalProperty2 != nil {
print("optionalProperty2 is set to \(optionalProperty2!)")
}
Lazy Variable
lazy var optionalProperty3: Type a lazy variable is different, it is not an optional unless you define it to be optional. Lazy variables do not initialise to a value until the value is first used. So if you do not call/use the variable it will never be set.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Swift 3 incorrect string interpolation with implicitly unwrapped Optionals
(1 answer)
Implicitly unwrapped optional assign in Xcode 8
(1 answer)
Closed 4 years ago.
In my project, trying to use capture lists with closures, but I have injected dependencies that are implicitly unwrapped since I guarantee that they will be populated by dependency injection. I discovered that using a capture list resulted in a compile error.
var forced: String!
func example() {
escapingClosure { [forced] in
let new = forced + "something" //has to be unwrapped again despite being forced
print(new)
}
}
func escapingClosure(closurce: #escaping () -> ()) {
//do something
}
Here is the error:
I can resolve this by force unwrapping inside the closure, but I'm surprised that is necessary given the implicitly unwrapped declaration. Why is that step necessary? Is this a bug or a feature?
You can declare implicit unwrappedness, but you cannot propagate it. There is actually no such thing as an implicitly unwrapped Optional type, so when you pass or assign or capture a value declared as that type, it reverts to a normal Optional. For example:
var forced: String! = "test"
let x = forced
You will find that x is an ordinary Optional, a String?. Your captured value is like that.
I am using playground to run the below code
var a : Int!
a = nil
print(a) o/p - none
print(a!) o/p - crash
a = 5
print(a) o/p - some(5)
print(a!) o/p - 5
I know optionals is enum and it has two type none or some.
But as I am declaring a as implicitly unwrapped I think I don't have to unwrap it to get the actual data.
Whether I have understood optionals wrong ?
As others have said, IUOs (implicitly unwrapped optionals) are now regular optionals with some hints to the compiler that gives it permission to unwrap them.
That being said, print is handled differently. Try using an assignment to a non-optional variable instead. That's a better test, e.g:
var a : Int! = nil
let b: Int = a
Here’s a use case for implicitly unwrapped optionals. In any class, all properties have to be initialised upon initialisation of the class instance. You can either assign the properties a default value or use the init function for property initialisation.
In a view controller, however, you don’t want to use an init function. Some properties might not have default values but will rather be initialised during viewDidLoad. In this case you could declare the property as implicitly unwrapped because it won’t be accessed before view controller loading—and after that you can make sure in viewDidLoad (or in the calling view controller’s prepareForSegue method, for example) that it is not nil, hence safe to be accessed from now on.
Just my two cents to add to your understanding of IUOs.
I can understand the statement, but as is good enough to cast any type, why followed by a question mark like:
if let foo = object as? String
It's really bugging me. Does it mean object is optional or the return value of the variable foo is an optional string type? Or it really means nothing just a language syntax? It must means something otherwise why is it there in the first-place? What does it mean? The question mark after word as in the if let statement.
I did search and can't find any.
i was confused course i know object is already an optional and be assigned to variable foo then if let unwrap it if it can unwrap,or jumped out the following statement.
so the if let unwrapping procedure is happening after as? type casting right? after as?casting a optional string from the example, then if let is unwrapping that not the optional object class assigned to the variable.
Your code:
if let foo = object as? String
breaks into two significant parts: object as? String and if let.
The first is a downcast which allows for failure by producing an optional type (String? here). From The Swift Programming Language (Swift 3.1): Typecasting:
Use the conditional form of the type cast operator (as?) when you are not sure if the downcast will succeed. This form of the operator will always return an optional value, and the value will be nil if the downcast was not possible. This enables you to check for a successful downcast.
The second, if let, is an optional binding which unwraps an optional, the body of the if let is only executed if the optional value being unwrapped is not nil and with the bound variable being bound to the unwrapped value. See Optional Binding in The Swift Programming Language (Swift 3.1): Basics.
So your sense that something is happening twice here is correct. The as? cast may fail and produce a nil optional value, the if let will test that optional value for nil. We can only hope that the compiler handles the combination of if let and as? together and no unneccesary optionals are actually created and destroyed by the implementation.
HTH
I have the following variable:
var npill : String!
It's an Int value, but I can't set it as Int because of:
npillIn: fieldNumeroPillole.text!,
How can I convert this var to a Int var? I have tried the following:
var number1: Int = (npill! as NSString).intValue
By the above code I receive the following error:
cannot use instance member 'npill' within property initializer, property initializers run before "self" is aviable
If I then set:
var number1: Int = (self.npill! as NSString).intValue
The error it outputs is as follows:
Value of type '(NSObject) -> () -> Farmaco' has no member 'npill'
If anyone knows how I should be converting it properly, please let me know.
Update
Thank you to #Hamish for pointing out what the OP was asking
So the problem seems to be this
import Foundation
class Foo {
var npill : String!
var number1: Int = (npill! as NSString).intValue
}
error: cannot use instance member 'npill' within property initializer; property initializers run before 'self' is available
var number1: Int = (npill! as NSString).intValue
^
What's going on here?
You are using a property to populate another property, and this is not allowed.
Solution
However you can easily fix the problem postponing the initialisation of number1. Infact if you make number1 lazy, it will be populated only when used.
class Foo {
var npill : String!
lazy var number1: Int = { return Int(self.npill!)! }()
}
Warning: Of course this code will crash if npill is still nil when number1 is used.
Old version
You can simply write
let npill: String! = "34"
if let npill = npill, let num = Int(npill) {
print(num) // <-- here you have your Int
}
(As #Hamish pointed out in a comment below, I misunderstood what the OP was really asking about. I'll leave my answer, however, as some curiosa and insights regarding ! type annotation, which may be relevant for future readers of this question)
For any type of String optionals, their values needs to be unwrapped prior to using the failable init?(_ text: String) initializer or Int.
In your example, the variable npill is an optional, as you've annotated its type with the ! specifier (which should be used with care). Quoting from the implemented evolution proposal SE-0054 [emphasis mine]
Appending ! to the type of a Swift declaration will give it optional
type and annotate the declaration with an attribute stating that it
may be implicitly unwrapped when used.
Hence, it's entirely legal to use npill directly with the init?(_ text: String) initializer of Int, as it will be unwrapped (without any safety check for nil content!) on-the-fly upon use.
// UNSAFE example!
var npill: String! = "42"
if let npillInt = Int(npill) {
/* ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^- since 'npill' has a type annotated with
| '!', it will be unsafely unwrapped at
| this point
\
the optional binding here safely unwraps the return from
the failable Int initializer, but has nothing to do with
the unwrapping of 'npill' */
print(npillInt) // 42
}
// why unsafe? consider
npill = nil
if let npillInt = Int(npill) { // runtime exception!
// ...
}
Generally you should avoid using the ! annotation, however, unless you are entirely certain that the content of the resulting optional variable will never ever be nil.
Leaving aside the cons of even using the ! annotation: you may implement a safe version of the unsafe example above, by overriding the unsafe implicit unwrapping with safe explicit unwrapping techniques. For a given optional variable declared using the ! annotation, we may still apply safe means to unwrap it, e.g. optional binding or using the nil coalescing operator. #appzYourLife has already showed one perfectly valid and safe way to handle the unwrapping and attempted type conversion of npill using optional binding, so I'll simply include another example using the nil coalescing operator instead:
// "safe" example (STILL: why use the `!` annotation?)
var npill: String! = "42"
if let npillInt = Int(npill ?? "x") {
/* ^^^^^ if 'npill' is 'nil', the Int initializer will
be given the value "x", which itself will lead
it to fail, which is safe here as we intend to
bind the result of the initialization to 'npillInt' */
print(npillInt) // 42
}
npill = nil
if let npillInt = Int(npill ?? "x") {
// ... doesnt enter
}
The consensus of the examples above is that if we're even slightly uncertain whether npill can ever be nil or not, we need to treat it as if it was just an optional not type annotated with ! (i.e. String?); overriding the default unsafe unwrapping with safe means when working with the variable. In such a case, why would we even want to use the ! typ annotation at all, as it only brings fragility/danger to our application?
The name of the ! always confuses me: it's called an 'implicitly unwrapped optional'. However, what is implicit about it? Implicit means "implied though not plainly expressed." However, does not adding a ! plainly express its purpose? Does not adding a ! make it explicit what we are trying to accomplish?
In Swift, trailing exclamation marks (!) are used in two different ways. One is called Forced Unwrapping. This is when you have a variable defined as an Optional and you want to basically assert that the value is not nil so that you can use it as if it were not an optional:
var optionalName: String? = "World"
if optionalName != nil {
sayHelloTo(optionalString!)
}
An alternate way you could describe "Forced Unwrapping" is "Explicit Unwrapping", but forced adds the extra hint that the whole program will crash if you try to "Force Unwrap" an optional that is nil.
The second is when you are actually declaring the type of a variable and it is called an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional. This is for when you want to declare a variable that is technically optional, but that you will treat as if it is not optional. Every time you use this Implicitly Unwrapped Optional, it is in reality, doing the "Force Unwrapping" I described above:
var name: String! = "World"
if name != nil {
sayHelloTo(name)
}
You can still test an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional for nil, but you can also use it directly as if it were not optional. That is why it is considered implicit. Every time you use it, it is automatically, implicitly unwrapped for you.
Like "Forced Unwrapping" an "Implicitly Unwrapped Optional" will still crash the entire program if you try to use it when it is nil
Normal Optional
var foo : Foo? = Foo()
foo!.doSomething() // explicitly unwrap it and call the method
Implicitly Unwrapped Optional
var foo : Foo! = Foo()
foo.doSomething() // implicitly unwrap it and call the method just like it is not optional
In both case, you need something to declare an optional (? or !). Implicitly Unwrapped Optional does not add more. But you can omit unwrap operator when use it.