I think I'm confused about the concept of 'unwrapping' an optional value, and any guidance would be much appreciated!
According to the Swift Programming Language Guide, an optional requires unwrapping before it can be used, unless it is implicitly unwrapped using an !.
From: Apple Inc. “The Swift Programming Language.” iBooks. https://itun.es/gb/jEUH0.l:
let possibleString: String? = "An optional string."
println(possibleString!) // requires an exclamation mark to access its value
whereas
let assumedString: String! = "An implicitly unwrapped optional string."
println(assumedString) // no exclamation mark is needed to access its value
However, in Xcode, I can do the following and still print the value of an optional string:
let teamname: String? = "Liverpool!"
println("Come on \(teamname)")
What am I missing?
First of all, an optional requires unwrapping only if you are using it somewhere that does not allow an optional. (e.g. assigning a String? to a String)
var optionalString: String? = "Some string"
var absolutelyAString: String = "Another string"
// absolutelyAString = optionalString // Error. Needs to unwrap
absolutelyAString = optionalString! // OK.
"Unwrap" basically means to "guarantee that the value is not nil". Just think of it as casting to a non-nullable type.
Second, println() accepts optionals just fine but because it checks your variable for you. If the value of your variable is nil, it prints "nil"; otherwise it prints the string implemented by the Streamable, Printable, or DebugPrintable protocols.
An optional requires unwrapping, but you don't always have to do it yourself.
var teamname: String? = "Liverpool"
println("Come on \(teamname)")
In this case, the string interpolation will check the optional then unwrap it and add its value to the String. If the Optional is nil, it will add "nil" to the String instead.
In order to access the properties and methods of String you will have to explicitly unwrap it. If you don't know if it is nil or not, you should check with an if statement.
if teamname != nil {
var newName = teamname!.capitalizedString
}
Related
Why are implicitly unwrapped optionals not unwrapped when using string interpolation in Swift 3?
Example:
Running the following code in the playground
var str: String!
str = "Hello"
print("The following should not be printed as an optional: \(str)")
produces this output:
The following should not be printed as an optional: Optional("Hello")
Of course I can concatenate strings with the + operator but I'm using string interpolation pretty much everywhere in my app which now doesn't work anymore due to this (bug?).
Is this even a bug or did they intentionally change this behaviour with Swift 3?
As per SE-0054, ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T> is no longer a distinct type; there is only Optional<T> now.
Declarations are still allowed to be annotated as implicitly unwrapped optionals T!, but doing so just adds a hidden attribute to inform the compiler that their value may be force unwrapped in contexts that demand their unwrapped type T; their actual type is now T?.
So you can think of this declaration:
var str: String!
as actually looking like this:
#_implicitlyUnwrapped // this attribute name is fictitious
var str: String?
Only the compiler sees this #_implicitlyUnwrapped attribute, but what it allows for is the implicit unwrapping of str's value in contexts that demand a String (its unwrapped type):
// `str` cannot be type-checked as a strong optional, so the compiler will
// implicitly force unwrap it (causing a crash in this case)
let x: String = str
// We're accessing a member on the unwrapped type of `str`, so it'll also be
// implicitly force unwrapped here
print(str.count)
But in all other cases where str can be type-checked as a strong optional, it will be:
// `x` is inferred to be a `String?` (because we really are assigning a `String?`)
let x = str
let y: Any = str // `str` is implicitly coerced from `String?` to `Any`
print(str) // Same as the previous example, as `print` takes an `Any` parameter.
And the compiler will always prefer treating it as such over force unwrapping.
As the proposal says (emphasis mine):
If the expression can be explicitly type checked with a strong optional type, it will be. However, the type checker will fall back to forcing the optional if necessary. The effect of this behavior is that the result of any expression that refers to a value declared as T! will either have type T or type T?.
When it comes to string interpolation, under the hood the compiler uses this initialiser from the _ExpressibleByStringInterpolation protocol in order to evaluate a string interpolation segment:
/// Creates an instance containing the appropriate representation for the
/// given value.
///
/// Do not call this initializer directly. It is used by the compiler for
/// each string interpolation segment when you use string interpolation. For
/// example:
///
/// let s = "\(5) x \(2) = \(5 * 2)"
/// print(s)
/// // Prints "5 x 2 = 10"
///
/// This initializer is called five times when processing the string literal
/// in the example above; once each for the following: the integer `5`, the
/// string `" x "`, the integer `2`, the string `" = "`, and the result of
/// the expression `5 * 2`.
///
/// - Parameter expr: The expression to represent.
init<T>(stringInterpolationSegment expr: T)
Therefore when implicitly called by your code:
var str: String!
str = "Hello"
print("The following should not be printed as an optional: \(str)")
As str's actual type is String?, by default that's what the compiler will infer the generic placeholder T to be. Therefore the value of str won't be force unwrapped, and you'll end up seeing the description for an optional.
If you wish for an IUO to be force unwrapped when used in string interpolation, you can simply use the force unwrap operator !:
var str: String!
str = "Hello"
print("The following should not be printed as an optional: \(str!)")
or you can coerce to its non-optional type (in this case String) in order to force the compiler to implicitly force unwrap it for you:
print("The following should not be printed as an optional: \(str as String)")
both of which, of course, will crash if str is nil.
Why are implicitly unwrapped optionals not unwrapped when using string interpolation in Swift 3?
Example:
Running the following code in the playground
var str: String!
str = "Hello"
print("The following should not be printed as an optional: \(str)")
produces this output:
The following should not be printed as an optional: Optional("Hello")
Of course I can concatenate strings with the + operator but I'm using string interpolation pretty much everywhere in my app which now doesn't work anymore due to this (bug?).
Is this even a bug or did they intentionally change this behaviour with Swift 3?
As per SE-0054, ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T> is no longer a distinct type; there is only Optional<T> now.
Declarations are still allowed to be annotated as implicitly unwrapped optionals T!, but doing so just adds a hidden attribute to inform the compiler that their value may be force unwrapped in contexts that demand their unwrapped type T; their actual type is now T?.
So you can think of this declaration:
var str: String!
as actually looking like this:
#_implicitlyUnwrapped // this attribute name is fictitious
var str: String?
Only the compiler sees this #_implicitlyUnwrapped attribute, but what it allows for is the implicit unwrapping of str's value in contexts that demand a String (its unwrapped type):
// `str` cannot be type-checked as a strong optional, so the compiler will
// implicitly force unwrap it (causing a crash in this case)
let x: String = str
// We're accessing a member on the unwrapped type of `str`, so it'll also be
// implicitly force unwrapped here
print(str.count)
But in all other cases where str can be type-checked as a strong optional, it will be:
// `x` is inferred to be a `String?` (because we really are assigning a `String?`)
let x = str
let y: Any = str // `str` is implicitly coerced from `String?` to `Any`
print(str) // Same as the previous example, as `print` takes an `Any` parameter.
And the compiler will always prefer treating it as such over force unwrapping.
As the proposal says (emphasis mine):
If the expression can be explicitly type checked with a strong optional type, it will be. However, the type checker will fall back to forcing the optional if necessary. The effect of this behavior is that the result of any expression that refers to a value declared as T! will either have type T or type T?.
When it comes to string interpolation, under the hood the compiler uses this initialiser from the _ExpressibleByStringInterpolation protocol in order to evaluate a string interpolation segment:
/// Creates an instance containing the appropriate representation for the
/// given value.
///
/// Do not call this initializer directly. It is used by the compiler for
/// each string interpolation segment when you use string interpolation. For
/// example:
///
/// let s = "\(5) x \(2) = \(5 * 2)"
/// print(s)
/// // Prints "5 x 2 = 10"
///
/// This initializer is called five times when processing the string literal
/// in the example above; once each for the following: the integer `5`, the
/// string `" x "`, the integer `2`, the string `" = "`, and the result of
/// the expression `5 * 2`.
///
/// - Parameter expr: The expression to represent.
init<T>(stringInterpolationSegment expr: T)
Therefore when implicitly called by your code:
var str: String!
str = "Hello"
print("The following should not be printed as an optional: \(str)")
As str's actual type is String?, by default that's what the compiler will infer the generic placeholder T to be. Therefore the value of str won't be force unwrapped, and you'll end up seeing the description for an optional.
If you wish for an IUO to be force unwrapped when used in string interpolation, you can simply use the force unwrap operator !:
var str: String!
str = "Hello"
print("The following should not be printed as an optional: \(str!)")
or you can coerce to its non-optional type (in this case String) in order to force the compiler to implicitly force unwrap it for you:
print("The following should not be printed as an optional: \(str as String)")
both of which, of course, will crash if str is nil.
"Value of optional type 'String??' not unwrapped; did you mean to use '!' or '?'?" -
I got this weird compiler error today, which was entirely confusing due to the two question marks after String.
I have a dictionary s, of type [String : String?], and a function which accepts all arguments as String?s. Specifically (from 5813's method of copying user-selected information into a dictionary), I have an elaborated version of the following:
func combine(firstname: String?, lastname: String?) {...}
var text = combine(s["kABPersonFirstNameProperty"], lastname: s["kABPersonLastNameProperty"])
I'm getting the error on the second line, and I'm wondering why it's so. If the values in s are of type String?, shouldn't that be accepted by combine(), since it's arguments are supposed to be of the same type? Why, then, would I get this error and how can I fix it?
Dictionary<T1, T2>[key] returns T2?. This is to return nil in case key doesn't exist.
So if T2 is String?, s[key] returns String??
You cannot pass String?? as String?
You can call like this to unwrap and prepare for non-existing key as well
var text = combine(s["kABPersonFirstNameProperty"] ?? nil, lastname: s["kABPersonLastNameProperty"] ?? nil)
By the way, code below will not set value to nil but remove the entire entry from the dictionary
s[key] = nil
If you want the value to be nil instead of removing entry, you will have to do this
s[key] = nil as String?
It is once optional because your dictionary value is optional. And it is optional again, because dictionary[key] returns optional. So you need to unwrap it twice.
Try this in a playground to understand the problem (and see possible solution):
let oos: String?? = "Hello"
print(oos)
if let os = oos { // Make String?
print(os)
if let s = os { // Make ordinary String
print(s)
}
}
Prints:
Optional(Optional("Hello"))
Optional("Hello")
Hello
But you could use other ways than if let to unwrap, too. For example:
print(oos! ?? "n/a")
Will force unwrap it once and then print either the inner String or n/a in case of nil...
Maybe the easiest solution would be to make the dictionary hold String instead of String?. Then you don't have the unwrapping problems which are described in other solutions.
Or do you really have to store String? types?
Do you want to differentiate between 'key exists but holds nil' and 'key does not exist'?
I'm new to swift and I'm having some difficulties understanding on how to use (!) and (?)
As far as I know, we can use (?) when there are instances that a variable can be nil.
And use (!) when you are 100% sure that item is not nil.
1. Working Fine - Optionals
var john:String?
john = "Is my name"
println(john!)
2. Crashes on Runtime - ! must not be nil - means this is correct
var john:String?
println(john!)
3. Works Fine
var dict: [String:AnyObject] = Dictionary()
dict["name"] = "John"
var str: String = dict["name"]! as String <--- Taking away the (!) says it's not convertible to String
4. Cannot Run/Build - for me it's similar to 1.
var dict: [String:AnyObject]? = Dictionary() ---error says does not have a member named 'subscript'
dict["name"] = "John"
var str: String = dict["name"]! as String
5. Unexpectedly found nil while unwrapping an optional value
var dict: [String:AnyObject] = Dictionary()
dict["name"]? = "John"
var str: String = dict["name"]! as String
Would be great if someone can help me understand these things. Thanks!
it is a bit misleading interpretation believing when an ! 'marks' an ivar then that 100% cannot be nil. it can be. you can say only, you got the value as already unwrapped, so you don't need to force unwrapping it again – but it can be nil.
try this example for instance:
var text: String! = "hello"
text = nil;
println(text)
it prints a nil for you.
the reason why your app can crash is you force unwrapping an optional which is nil, that is invalid operand.
#4
line-by-line:
var dict: [String:AnyObject]? = Dictionary() // from OP
your dict is an optional, let us see what you are doing here:
dict["name"] = "John" // from OP
var str: String = dict["name"]! as String // from OP
you have an optional dict and you'd like to use it somehow, you have two possible ways to do it:
(A) via optional chaining;
(B) via forced unwrapping;
(A)
dict?["name"] = "John" // optional chaining
it is quite straightforward, it assigns the new value for the key name if the dictionary is not nil, otherwise the chain generously falls and nothing happens in runtime.
in perspective of this line:
var str: String = dict!["name"]! as String // forcibly unwrapped
it crashes in runtime if either the dictionary or the value for the key was nil (as per the first paragraph says: invalid operand to force unwrapping a nil), but the str would be John if the dictionary and the key both do valid objects.
(B)
dict!["name"] = "John" // forcibly unwrapped
it works like a charm and assigns the new value for the key name if the dict exists; but if the dict was nil, that is a termination point in runtime (aka crash), because nil cannot be unwrapped forcibly (see above).
#5
line-by-line:
var dict: [String:AnyObject] = Dictionary() // from OP
your dict is not optional and not even nil, but the dictionary is literally empty, so no key does exist in it, including the name.
dict["name"]? = "John" // from OP
var str: String = dict["name"]! as String // from OP
the optional chaining always falls when any of the element of the chain falls – therefore no new value will be assigned in your code, but the falling happens gracefully, so you bypass the first line about assigning the new value, but the app crashes in the second line because the value does not exists and you try to force unwrapping it (see above about invalid operand).
so, you need to drop the optional chaining from the first line, if you want to assign a new value for a non-existing key:
dict["name"] = "John"
the optional chaining is useful if you would not like to change the original dictionary with adding a new key/value, but you would like to override an existing one only:
dict["name"] = "John"
dict["name"]? = "Jack"
in that case the new value will be Jack, because the optional chaining won't fall as the key name is already existing with a different value, so it can be and will be overridden; but:
dict["name"] = nil
dict["name"]? = "Jack"
the optional chaining will falls and no new value is assigned here for the key.
NOTE: there would be many other things and ideas which can be told about the concept. the original documentation is available on Apple site under section Swift Resources.
Difference between String?,String! and String
I am using this code :
var myString:String? = nil
var myString1:String = ""
var myString2:String! = nil
println(myString2)
Here it's giving nil in myString2 instead of run-time error.
There are better explanations out there, but the simple version is:
String is a String. It holds a String value.
String? is an Optional String. It can hold a String value or nil. You can unwrap the optional and immediately try to access the String value by using ! like this:
var str: String? = nil
str!.length
That code will result in a runtime error because str is nil. A safer way to get the value of the optional is to use an if let:
var str: String? = nil
if let myStr = str{
myStr.length
}
That has the same functionality as the above code, but won't crash on nil values.
String! is an implicitly unwrapped optional. It works that same way as a regular optional but it is assumed to be non-nil, so when you call it it tries to access the value like it was a regular optional with ! after.
The reason println works on all these types is because it can take Strings, String Optionals, and nil values and handles them all.
var str: String? = "hello world"
println(str)
println(str!)
println(nil)
All should work.
#connor's answer is correct.
var Amy:Wife? // Amy is your girlfriend, she may or may not be your wife.
var Amy:Wife // Amy is your wife.
var Amy:Wife! // Amy will be your wife, no matter you like it or not.