It makes perfect sense for the equality operator to support optionals, because it's absolutely clear that for any integer valued variable i
:
nil == nil
nil != i
i != nil
i == i
if and only if their values are the same
On the other hand, it's not clear how comparison to nil
should act:
Is i
less than nil
?
- If I want to sort an array so that all the
nil
s come out at the end, then I would want i
to be less than nil
.
- But if I want to sort an array so that all the
nil
s come out at the start, then I would want i
to be greater than nil
.
Since either of these are equally valid, it wouldn't make sense for the standard library to favor one over the other. It's left to the programmer to implement whichever comparison makes sense for their use-case.
Here's a toy implementation that generates a comparison operator to suite either case:
func nilComparator<T: Comparable>(nilIsLess: Bool) -> (T?, T?) -> Bool {
return {
switch ($0, $1) {
case (nil, nil): return false
case (nil, _?): return nilIsLess
case (_?, nil): return !nilIsLess
case let (a?, b?): return a < b
}
}
}
let input = (0...10).enumerated().map {
$0.offset.isMultiple(of: 2) ? Optional($0.element) : nil
}
func concisePrint<T>(_ optionals: [T?]) -> String {
return "[" + optionals.map { $0.map{ "($0)?" } ?? "nil" }.joined(separator: ", ") + "]"
}
print("Input:", concisePrint(input))
print("nil is less:", concisePrint(input.sorted(by: nilComparator(nilIsLess: true))))
print("nil is more:", concisePrint(input.sorted(by: nilComparator(nilIsLess: false))))
Output:
Input: [0?, nil, 2?, nil, 4?, nil, 6?, nil, 8?, nil, 10?]
nil is less: [nil, nil, nil, nil, nil, 0?, 2?, 4?, 6?, 8?, 10?]
nil is more: [0?, 2?, 4?, 6?, 8?, 10?, nil, nil, nil, nil, nil]