Rob NapierMar 20, 2024

I anticipate a long future of an ambiguous meaning of `@\unchecked Sendable`:

Meaning 1 (the official meaning):
This type is Sendable, but it cannot be proven due to limitations of the compiler, language, or frameworks.

Meaning 2 (the…other meaning):
This type is totally NOT Sendable, but I am way too tired to make it so. Please forgive me, those who suffer what I do today.

I fear in the not-to-distant future we will regret that these have the same spelling.

Show threadMatt MassicotteMar 20, 2024
@cocoaphony Many people will never accept a force-unwrap even though it is super easy to do. I agree it isn’t as impactful, not by a long shot. But I think many developers will just not accept unchecked in the same way.
Show threadRob Napier

@mattiem I expect that, too. Unfortunately there isn't a particularly easy fix like there is for unwrapped optionals. So I expect a lot of frustration where people feel "unchecked is bad, but there's no solution."

I'm glad they used the word "unchecked" rather than "unsafe." That will help some.

But also…unchecked is kinda bad. You lose all checking for the type, and it's easy for the type to keep evolving and break what made unchecked ok.

Mar 20, 2024 at 9:16pmWeb