Avatar
omochimetaru 10/9/2018 3:12 AM
このくだりが読めない・・・ Although Swift clearly has better alternatives to check for nil, this special case of optional pattern usage is very important in relation to the alternative currently discussed. The same tendency can be seen in for element in sequence?, but since binding the unwrapped sequence would effectively almost never be required, we omit the case let _? = part preceding sequence? as a rule of thumb.
3:13 AM
てか、この代替案が棄却された理由を述べてるわけじゃない?