Question or problem in the Swift programming language:
I am rather perplexed by this. If we take the method cellForRowAtIndexPath: in UITableView for example, it’s method signature is:
func cellForRowAtIndexPath(_ indexPath: NSIndexPath!) -> UITableViewCell!
And its return value is:
That sounds like the perfect reason to use a standard optional. In fact, since all pointer based types in Objective-C can be nil… it seems to make sense that all Objective-C pointer types should be imported as standard optionals.
I know from the WWDC talk that they say that for implicitly unwrapped optionals:
And from Apple’s Using Swift with Cocoa and Objective-C:
So, instead of importing a possibly nil value into Swift as an optional, they decided to import it as something that states that this should never be nil… but could be? It sounds like they completely negated the safety of the optional type in Swift for Objective-C APIs by doing this. What do I seem to be missing?
Instead of giving a compile time error or warning, they decided a runtime error was better? This is very confusing.
Considering that nothing seems to answer this question that I have seen… I am thinking it is something obvious to everybody else that I am just not seeing but… Why is it like this?
Is it really just to save people from using if let or optional chaining when they use Objective-C APIs in Swift, or something more?
How to solve the problem:
When you make an implicitly unwrapped optional in Swift, it does not mean that it is always going to be non-nil: all it means is that you tell the compiler that when you access their properties, you expect the object to be non-
nil. The object that you reference can be explicitly checked for
nil; setting it to
nil will not cause an exception either, unless you try to access any of its properties after that.
When Apple used implicitly unwrapped optionals for the parameters of
func tableView(_ tableView: UITableView!, cellForRowAtIndexPath indexPath: NSIndexPath!) -> UITableViewCell!
function, they let you save on a few extra
let. In this case, they know that they never pass you a
nil; in other cases, they do not know it, and they expect you to
nil-check the object.
They allow you to return
nil, too. It is up to them to check the results for
nil, unless, of course, you decide to call that function yourself. Although I cannot think of a valid reason to call
cellForRowAtIndexPath from your own code, if you do make a call, it would be your responsibility to check the return value for
If you consider an alternative of making the parameters
NSIndexPath? instead, all implementations would have to either use an exclamation point after
indexPath, or use the
let idiom. Compared to this choice, implicitly unwrapped types look like a better choice.
The following was Greg Parker’s answer in swift-users at lists.swift.org:
Importing as implicitly-unwrapped optional is a usability
compromise. Most Objective-C pointers are never actually nil. If a pointer is nil, and the author didn’t check, then the process
deliberately halts. This is no worse than the behavior you get when
writing Objective-C code.
IUO import is intended to be a stopgap. In the long term every Objective-C interface ought to be explicitly annotated so that Swift
can import them more precisely. In your own code you can use
NS_ASSUME_NONNULL_BEGIN/END in your header files. Every un-annotated
object pointer inside those markers is nonnull.