Related
Why would you create a "Implicitly Unwrapped Optional" vs creating just a regular variable or constant?
If you know that it can be successfully unwrapped then why create an optional in the first place?
For example, why is this:
let someString: String! = "this is the string"
going to be more useful than:
let someString: String = "this is the string"
If ”optionals indicate that a constant or variable is allowed to have 'no value'”, but “sometimes it is clear from a program’s structure that an optional will always have a value after that value is first set”, what is the point of making it an optional in the first place?
If you know an optional is always going to have a value, doesn't that make it not optional?
Before I can describe the use cases for Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals, you should already understand what Optionals and Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals are in Swift. If you do not, I recommend you first read my article on optionals
When To Use An Implicitly Unwrapped Optional
There are two main reasons that one would create an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional. All have to do with defining a variable that will never be accessed when nil because otherwise, the Swift compiler will always force you to explicitly unwrap an Optional.
1. A Constant That Cannot Be Defined During Initialization
Every member constant must have a value by the time initialization is complete. Sometimes, a constant cannot be initialized with its correct value during initialization, but it can still be guaranteed to have a value before being accessed.
Using an Optional variable gets around this issue because an Optional is automatically initialized with nil and the value it will eventually contain will still be immutable. However, it can be a pain to be constantly unwrapping a variable that you know for sure is not nil. Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals achieve the same benefits as an Optional with the added benefit that one does not have to explicitly unwrap it everywhere.
A great example of this is when a member variable cannot be initialized in a UIView subclass until the view is loaded:
class MyView: UIView {
#IBOutlet var button: UIButton!
var buttonOriginalWidth: CGFloat!
override func awakeFromNib() {
self.buttonOriginalWidth = self.button.frame.size.width
}
}
Here, you cannot calculate the original width of the button until the view loads, but you know that awakeFromNib will be called before any other method on the view (other than initialization). Instead of forcing the value to be explicitly unwrapped pointlessly all over your class, you can declare it as an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional.
2. When Your App Cannot Recover From a Variable Being nil
This should be extremely rare, but if your app can not continue to run if a variable is nil when accessed, it would be a waste of time to bother testing it for nil. Normally if you have a condition that must absolutely be true for your app to continue running, you would use an assert. An Implicitly Unwrapped Optional has an assert for nil built right into it. Even then, it is often good to unwrap the optional and use a more descriptive assert if it is nil.
When Not To Use An Implicitly Unwrapped Optional
1. Lazily Calculated Member Variables
Sometimes you have a member variable that should never be nil, but it cannot be set to the correct value during initialization. One solution is to use an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional, but a better way is to use a lazy variable:
class FileSystemItem {
}
class Directory : FileSystemItem {
lazy var contents : [FileSystemItem] = {
var loadedContents = [FileSystemItem]()
// load contents and append to loadedContents
return loadedContents
}()
}
Now, the member variable contents is not initialized until the first time it is accessed. This gives the class a chance to get into the correct state before calculating the initial value.
Note: This may seem to contradict #1 from above. However, there is an important distinction to be made. The buttonOriginalWidth above must be set during viewDidLoad to prevent anyone changing the buttons width before the property is accessed.
2. Everywhere Else
For the most part, Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals should be avoided because if used mistakenly, your entire app will crash when it is accessed while nil. If you are ever not sure about whether a variable can be nil, always default to using a normal Optional. Unwrapping a variable that is never nil certainly doesn't hurt very much.
Consider the case of an object that may have nil properties while it's being constructed and configured, but is immutable and non-nil afterwards (NSImage is often treated this way, though in its case it's still useful to mutate sometimes). Implicitly unwrapped optionals would clean up its code a good deal, with relatively low loss of safety (as long as the one guarantee held, it would be safe).
(Edit) To be clear though: regular optionals are nearly always preferable.
Implicitly unwrapped optionals are useful for presenting a property as non-optional when really it needs to be optional under the covers. This is often necessary for "tying the knot" between two related objects that each need a reference to the other. It makes sense when neither reference is actually optional, but one of them needs to be nil while the pair is being initialized.
For example:
// These classes are buddies that never go anywhere without each other
class B {
var name : String
weak var myBuddyA : A!
init(name : String) {
self.name = name
}
}
class A {
var name : String
var myBuddyB : B
init(name : String) {
self.name = name
myBuddyB = B(name:"\(name)'s buddy B")
myBuddyB.myBuddyA = self
}
}
var a = A(name:"Big A")
println(a.myBuddyB.name) // prints "Big A's buddy B"
Any B instance should always have a valid myBuddyA reference, so we don't want to make the user treat it as optional, but we need it to be optional so that we can construct a B before we have an A to refer to.
HOWEVER! This sort of mutual reference requirement is often an indication of tight coupling and poor design. If you find yourself relying on implicitly unwrapped optionals you should probably consider refactoring to eliminate the cross-dependencies.
Implicitly unwrapped optionals are pragmatic compromise to make the work in hybrid environment that has to interoperate with existing Cocoa frameworks and their conventions more pleasant, while also allowing for stepwise migration into safer programing paradigm — without null pointers — enforced by the Swift compiler.
Swift book, in The Basics chapter, section Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals says:
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.
…
You can think of an implicitly unwrapped optional as giving permission for the optional to be unwrapped automatically whenever it is used. Rather than placing an exclamation mark after the optional’s name each time you use it, you place an exclamation mark after the optional’s type when you declare it.
This comes down to use cases where the non-nil-ness of properties is established via usage convention, and can not be enforced by compiler during the class initialization. For example, the UIViewController properties that are initialized from NIBs or Storyboards, where the initialization is split into separate phases, but after the viewDidLoad() you can assume that properties generally exist. Otherwise, in order to satisfy the compiler, you had to be using the
forced unwrapping,
optional binding
or optional chaining
only to obscure the main purpose of the code.
Above part from the Swift book refers also to the Automatic Reference Counting chapter:
However, there is a third scenario, in which both properties should always have a value, and neither property should ever be nil once initialization is complete. In this scenario, it is useful to combine an unowned property on one class with an implicitly unwrapped optional property on the other class.
This enables both properties to be accessed directly (without optional unwrapping) once initialization is complete, while still avoiding a reference cycle.
This comes down to the quirks of not being a garbage collected language, therefore the breaking of retain cycles is on you as a programmer and implicitly unwrapped optionals are a tool to hide this quirk.
That covers the “When to use implicitly unwrapped optionals in your code?” question. As an application developer, you’ll mostly encounter them in method signatures of libraries written in Objective-C, which doesn’t have the ability to express optional types.
From Using Swift with Cocoa and Objective-C, section Working with nil:
Because Objective-C does not make any guarantees that an object is non-nil, Swift makes all classes in argument types and return types optional in imported Objective-C APIs. Before you use an Objective-C object, you should check to ensure that it is not missing.
In some cases, you might be absolutely certain that an Objective-C method or property never returns a nil object reference. To make objects in this special scenario more convenient to work with, Swift imports object types as implicitly unwrapped optionals. Implicitly unwrapped optional types include all of the safety features of optional types. In addition, you can access the value directly without checking for nil or unwrapping it yourself. When you access the value in this kind of optional type without safely unwrapping it first, the implicitly unwrapped optional checks whether the value is missing. If the value is missing, a runtime error occurs. As a result, you should always check and unwrap an implicitly unwrapped optional yourself, unless you are sure that the value cannot be missing.
...and beyond here lay
One-line (or several-line) simple examples don't cover the behavior of optionals very well — yeah, if you declare a variable and provide it with a value right away, there's no point in an optional.
The best case I've seen so far is setup that happens after object initialization, followed by use that's "guaranteed" to follow that setup, e.g. in a view controller:
class MyViewController: UIViewController {
var screenSize: CGSize?
override func viewDidLoad {
super.viewDidLoad()
screenSize = view.frame.size
}
#IBAction printSize(sender: UIButton) {
println("Screen size: \(screenSize!)")
}
}
We know printSize will be called after the view is loaded — it's an action method hooked up to a control inside that view, and we made sure not to call it otherwise. So we can save ourselves some optional-checking/binding with the !. Swift can't recognize that guarantee (at least until Apple solves the halting problem), so you tell the compiler it exists.
This breaks type safety to some degree, though. Anyplace you have an implicitly unwrapped optional is a place your app can crash if your "guarantee" doesn't always hold, so it's a feature to use sparingly. Besides, using ! all the time makes it sound like you're yelling, and nobody likes that.
Apple gives a great example in The Swift Programming Language -> Automatic Reference Counting -> Resolving Strong Reference Cycles Between Class Instances -> Unowned References and Implicitly Unwrapped Optional Properties
class Country {
let name: String
var capitalCity: City! // Apple finally correct this line until 2.0 Prerelease (let -> var)
init(name: String, capitalName: String) {
self.name = name
self.capitalCity = City(name: capitalName, country: self)
}
}
class City {
let name: String
unowned let country: Country
init(name: String, country: Country) {
self.name = name
self.country = country
}
}
The initializer for City is called from within the initializer for Country. However, the initializer for Country cannot pass self to the City initializer until a new Country instance is fully initialized, as described in Two-Phase Initialization.
To cope with this requirement, you declare the capitalCity property of Country as an implicitly unwrapped optional property.
The rationale of implicit optionals is easier to explain by first looking at the rationale for forced unwrapping.
Forced unwrapping of an optional (implicit or not), using the ! operator, means you're certain that your code has no bugs and the optional already has a value where it is being unwrapped. Without the ! operator, you would probably just assert with an optional binding:
if let value = optionalWhichTotallyHasAValue {
println("\(value)")
} else {
assert(false)
}
which is not as nice as
println("\(value!)")
Now, implicit optionals let you express having an optional which you expect to always to have a value when unwrapped, in all possible flows. So it just goes a step further in helping you - by relaxing the requirement of writing the ! to unwrap each time, and ensuring that the runtime will still error in case your assumptions about the flow are wrong.
If you know for sure, a value return from an optional instead of nil, Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals use to directly catch those values from optionals and non optionals can't.
//Optional string with a value
let optionalString: String? = "This is an optional String"
//Declaration of an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional String
let implicitlyUnwrappedOptionalString: String!
//Declaration of a non Optional String
let nonOptionalString: String
//Here you can catch the value of an optional
implicitlyUnwrappedOptionalString = optionalString
//Here you can't catch the value of an optional and this will cause an error
nonOptionalString = optionalString
So this is the difference between use of
let someString : String! and let someString : String
Implicitly Unwrapped Optional(IUO)
It is a syntactic sugar for Optional that does not force a programmer to unwrap a variable. It can be used for a variable which can not be initialised during two-phase initialization process and implies non-nil. This variable behaves itself as non-nil but actually is an optional variable. A good example is - Interface Builder's outlets
Optional usually are preferable
var implicitlyUnwrappedOptional: String! //<- Implicitly Unwrapped Optional
var nonNil: String = ""
var optional: String?
func foo() {
//get a value
nonNil.count
optional?.count
//Danderour - makes a force unwrapping which can throw a runtime error
implicitlyUnwrappedOptional.count
//assign to nil
// nonNil = nil //Compile error - 'nil' cannot be assigned to type 'String'
optional = nil
implicitlyUnwrappedOptional = nil
}
I think Optional is a bad name for this construct that confuses a lot of beginners.
Other languages (Kotlin and C# for example) use the term Nullable, and it makes it a lot easier to understand this.
Nullable means you can assign a null value to a variable of this type. So if it's Nullable<SomeClassType>, you can assign nulls to it, if it's just SomeClassType, you can't. That's just how Swift works.
Why use them? Well, sometimes you need to have nulls, that's why. For example, when you know that you want to have a field in a class, but you can't assign it to anything when you are creating an instance of that class, but you will later on. I won't give examples, because people have already provided them on here. I'm just writing this up to give my 2 cents.
Btw, I suggest you look at how this works in other languages, like Kotlin and C#.
Here's a link explaining this feature in Kotlin:
https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/null-safety.html
Other languages, like Java and Scala do have Optionals, but they work differently from Optionals in Swift, because Java and Scala's types are all nullable by default.
All in all, I think that this feature should have been named Nullable in Swift, and not Optional...
I was trying to assign a value to a var but I get this error: fatal error: unexpectedly found nil while unwrapping an Optional value.
the code:
vehicle.chassis = Chasis.text
but the variable is not an optional, I declare the variable this way:
var vehicle: Vehicle!
how can I fix this problem?
check the image
You are trying to set a property to an instance that doesn't exist, because the implicitly unwrapped Optional vehicle is nil.
You can't set vehicle.chassis if vehicle is nil.
Before accessing .chassis you have to populate vehicle somewhere with an instance of Vehicle, for example in an init, or in viewDidLoad, etc:
vehicle = Vehicle()
and then you can access the .chassis property:
vehicle.chassis = Chasis.text
To clarify what some of the above commenters have already mentioned, you're declaring your property as an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional (IUO herein). Only optionals in Swift can be nil, but optionals must be unwrapped, IUO's don't need to be unwrapped, but might crash. IUO's exist for 2 reasons.
To provide an unsafe/more raw access to your property to achieve ingrained Objective-C design patterns more quickly. That is, directly act on "pointers" that may or may not be nil and crash when it is.
To provide a non-optional interface to properties that you cannot guarantee will be initialized by the time your class/struct init finishes, but you can guarantee will be initialized by the time you use it. Useful for something the compiler can't verify but you as a programmer can.
That being said, I can only think of 2 sane proper ways to use IUO's in a Swifty manner, 1 is for IBOutlets, these aren't compiled by the swift compiler, don't exist after init(), but are guaranteed to be fulfilled by the time you use it (if your nib isn't corrupt), perfect use case for IUO's.
Another, while less imperative since it can be designed around, is Database models where you want lazy reads (which in itself is a bit of a pain to implement anyway)
I'm trying to wrap my head around why what feels intuitive is illegal when it comes to a dictionary containing an array in Swift.
Suppose I have:
var arr = [1,2,3,4,5]
var dict = ["a":1, "b":2, "test":arr]
I can easily access the dictionary members like so:
dict["a"]
dict["b"]
dict["test"]
As expected, each of these will return the stored value, including the array for key "test":
[1,2,3,4,5]
My intuitive reaction to this based on other languages is that this should be legal:
dict["test"][2]
Which I would expect to return 3. Of course, this doesn't work in Swift. After lots of tinkering I realize that this is the proper way to do this:
dict["test"]!.objectAtIndex(2)
Realizing this, I return to my intuitive approach and say, "Well then, this should work too:"
dict["test"]![2]
Which it does... What I don't really get is why the unwrap isn't implied by the array dereference. What am I missing in the way that Swift "thinks?"
All dictionary lookups in Swift return Optional variables.
Why? Because the key you are looking up might not exist. If the key doesn't exist, the dictionary returns nil. Since nil can be returned, the lookup type has to be an Optional.
Because the dictionary lookup returns an Optional value, you must unwrap it. This can be done in various ways. A safe way to deal with this is to use Optional Chaining combined with Optional Binding:
if let value = dict["test"]?[2] {
print(value)
}
In this case, if "test" is not a valid key, the entire chain dict["test"]?[2] will return nil and the Optional Binding if let will fail so the print will never happen.
If you force unwrap the dictionary access, it will crash if the key does not exist:
dict["test"]![2] // this will crash if "test" is not a valid key
The problem is that Dictionary’s key-based subscript returns an optional – because the key might not be present.
The easiest way to achieve your goal is via optional chaining. This compiles:
dict["test"]?[2]
Note, though, that the result will still be optional (i.e. if there were no key test, then you could get nil back and the second subscript will not be run). So you may still have to unwrap it later. But it differs from ! in that if the value isn’t present your program won’t crash, but rather just evaluate nil for the optional result.
See here for a long list of ways to handle optionals, or here for a bit more background on optionals.
In the Objective-C world, it has potential crash if you are trying to access 3 by dict[#"test"][2]. What if dict[#"test"] is nil or the array you get from dict[#"test"] has two elements only? Of course, you already knew the data is just like that. Then, it has no problem at all.
What if the data is fetched from the backend and it has some problems with it? This will still go through the compiler but the application crashes at runtime. Users are not programmers and they only know: The app crashes. Probably, they don't want to use it anymore. So, the bottom line is: No Crashes at all.
Swift introduces a type called Optional Type which means value might be missing so that the codes are safe at runtime. Inside the Swift, it's actually trying to implement an if-else to examine whether data is missing.
For your case, I will separate two parts:
Part 1: dict["test"]! is telling compiler to ignore if-else statement and return the value no matter what. Instead, dict["test"]? will return nil if the value if missing. The terminology is Explicit Unwrapping
Part 2: dict["test"]?[2] has potential crash. What if dict["test"]? returns a valid array and it only has two element? This way to store the data is the same using dict[#"test"][2] in Objective-C. That's why it has something called Optional Type Unwrapping. It will only go the if branch when valid data is there. The safest way:
if let element = dict["test"]?[2] {
// do your stuff
}
self.presentTextInputControllerWithSuggestions(nil, allowedInputMode: WKTextInputMode.Plain) { (results:[AnyObject]!) -> Void in
// results can be nil
if let speech = results.first as? String {
debugPrint(speech)
}
}
Excuse my ignorance, I'm afraid I've missed some basic understanding of optionals. I'm under the impression that !, the implictly unwrapped optional indicator, is a guarantee that the variable of that type is not nil. Yet this very straightforward Apple API will infrequently return me nil.
Is this an unintended bug or part of the spec for Optionals? Because if this is part of the spec, I don't understand why there are optionals in the first place as opposed to having variables that can either be present or nil.
I'm under the impression that !, the implictly unwrapped optional indicator, is a guarantee that the variable of that type is not nil.
That’s a mis-impression I’m afraid. Implicitly-unwrapped optionals can very much be nil. Only something that isn’t declared with any optional qualifier, neither ? nor !, is guaranteed to be non-nil.
So:
var definitelyCouldBeNilForcedToCheck: String?
var mightBeNilButProbablyNotBECAREFUL: String!
var definitelyNotEverNil: String
There are two use cases for implicitly-unwrapped optionals:
When you are absolutely positively certain that your value won’t be nil, except briefly in very controlled circumstances. For example suppose you have a function that does some processing in its failable initializer. Like this:
class FileHandler {
let fileHandle: SomeFileHandleType!
init?(fileName: String) {
fileHandle = open(fileName)
if fileHandle == nil { return nil }
}
deinit {
if fileHandle != nil {
fileHandle.close()
}
}
func variousMethods() {
// can just use fileHandle without bothering about
// unwrapping it, because it cannot possibly be nil
// based on how you’ve written your code
}
}
When you have a massive corpus of Objective-C (lets say, Cocoa or UIKit), and you have no idea when some pointer is returned whether it can be nil or not. And most of the time you think it probably isn’t, and it would be really annoying to make your API users have to unwrap stuff constantly, but then again, you don’t know for certain it can’t be nil and you want them to read the documentation instead. But they’ll probably forget, but what can you do? Eventually you’ll audit all the functions and then make them optionals or non-nullable values.
Whenever you see a method signature with an ! operator in it like this, you must check it for nil.
In most cases, the argument will be an implicitly unwrapped optional because it's from an Objective-C library which hasn't been updated to account for the Objective-C nullability annotations yet (which Objective-C source code files use to tell Swift whether or not the argument should be an optional).
Objective-C doesn't support the idea of optionals.
If this is from an Apple library, it's only a matter of time before they release an Xcode update which will address this and change the argument to either a non-optional or an optional. Apple has no long-term plans for leaving any implicitly unwrapped optionals in their parameters.
No, This symbol ! is not a guarantee the variable is not nil.
Optionals in swift is tricky.
let's say you have the following variable of type String
var name: String?
This is not a string. It's an optional string which is a different thing.
however the following:
var name: String!
is an implicitly unwrapped optional which means calling name will always give the string not the optional string which could be nil.
Normally use implicitly unwrapped optional if you want your code to crash if the optional is nil.
If I have property like:
var animatedImagesView:JSAnimatedImagesView?
And eventually it gets initialized at the proper time, do I need to just keep using ! to unwrap it ad nauseum when I want to do something to it? For instance:
self.animatedImagesView!.reloadData()
Usually I unwrap optionals like:
if let dailySleepTime:AnyObject = uw_JSON["daily_sleep_time"] {
self.settings.dailySleepTime = dailySleepTime as String
} else {
log.warning("\n Error finding attr in \(request)\n")
}
but I can't just go around casting my properties to constants in the same way right? I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering if I'm using the exclamation point correctly.
One option is to define animatedImageView as an implicitly unwrapped optional to begin with:
var animatedImagesView: JSAnimatedImagesView!
This is common when dealing with Cocoa .nib objects in Interface Builder, because the View can't be initialized until it is unarchived from the .nib, but you know that it will always be initialized before you use it.
I hate using the ! in general, because it is a runtime error just waiting to happen, but IB objects are one of the few places where its use seems both legitimate and necessary. Otherwise, your two other options are the ones that you have already found - unwrapping it every time using if let... (which is safest, but a pain in the a**), or using the ! every time that you use it, which isn't any safer than just declaring it using ! to begin with.
If you initialize it at the correct time (for example in any of the lifecycle methods, or in the constructor for that matter) you could just use ! instead of ? for the property declaration. I myself usually only use ? for stuff which I dont necessarily know will have a value at all times during my lifecycle.
If the latter is the case for you as well, you need to continue using ? since you can't guarantee you have a value stored. And you should also use the if let myVar = myVar { .. } syntax if you do multiple calls to the variable.
Instead, declare it as follows:
var animatedImagesView:JSAnimatedImagesView!
That implicitly unwrapped optional will obviate the need to constantly "bang" dereference it, but be sure it is never nil at any time accessed.
It's a great way to specify IBOutlets you know will always be initialized from the nib or storyboard before you use them.