👋 I’m Nathan

Swift already has a Result type

Maybe.

Photo of a poster reading 'Ask more questions'
Photo by JD Simcoe @ https://unsplash.com/@jdsimcoe

Over the last few years I’ve had the privilege of writing and deploying applications using a myriad of languages. Scala, ruby, javascript, haskell, clojure, etc. Every time I pick up a tool, especially if it’s new to me, I try to learn the grain of it. A programming language is a toolbox of ideas and concepts that anyone can use to build stuff. Yet, I see a lot of dissatisfaction from my colleagues and peeps online with the tools currently available.

There is a great talk about how swift is not a functional language by Rob Napier and you should watch it. It’s a great lesson about how one should use a language how it’s made and not how one wishes it were. However, I was really disappointed that Rob made the case that swift should add a Result enum. Swift already has this feature, but I guess a lot of people don’t like it.

Swift has an Optional type, but you don’t normally see it directly. You interact with optionals through language constructs. An example:

struct Person {
    let name: String
    let bio: String? = nil
}

let person = Person(name: "Nathan")

if let bio = person.bio {
    print("\(person.name)’s bio: \(bio)")
} else {
    print("\(person.name) doesn't have a bio.")
}

The words optional, some, and none are nowhere to be found in the above example.

Optional is basically a “maybe” type and it’s really nice to have support directly in the language for it. Instead of writing a bunch of case .some and other similar statements, we can just use let and other language constructs to work through detecting if anything is in there.

This example below is similar to a lot of examples I’ve seen for a Result type:

enum Result<T> {
    case success(T)
    case error(String)
}

func isLowerHalf(_ number: Int) -> Result<Int> {
    if number < 50 {
        return .success(number)
    } else {
        return .error("Sorry.")
    }
}

isLowerHalf(70) // error("Sorry.")
isLowerHalf(20) // success(20)

At first glance, this seems pretty nice. I’ve added enums like this to a lot of my swift projects. However, recently I’ve noticed that I always end up having to perform a lot of ceremony to extract the values from the enum:

let result = isLowerHalf(40)

switch result {
    case .success(let value): print("Yes, \(value) is in the lower half!")
    case .error(let value): print("\(value) Not in the lower half.")
}

Or one can try to only extract and use the success case:

if case let .success(value) = isLowerHalf(20) {
    print("OK, that worked, but it's pretty weird.")
}

This is a lot of work to fight against the tools that are already in the language. Swift already has a way of marking a function as returning one of two types, one is a success and the other is an Error, and it’s throws.

struct NotLowerHalf: Error {}

func isLowerHalf(_ number: Int) throws -> Int {
    if number < 50 {
        return number
    } else {
        throw NotLowerHalf()
    }
}

Now we can use the built in facilities of the language to call the function:

try? isLowerHalf(70) // nil
try? isLowerHalf(20) // 20
do {
    let value = try isLowerHalf(70)
    print("Yes, \(value) is in the lower half!")
} catch is NotLowerHalf {
    print("Not in the lower half.")
}

if let value = try? isLowerHalf(20) {
    print("OK, that worked, and it's not _too_ weird.")
}

let result = try! isLowerHalf(40) // would cause a crash if it failed

Many people I’ve talked to say they avoid throws because they believe using exceptions for control flow is bad. I agree, exceptions are not reasonable for control flow most of the time.

throw does not raise an exception. From the swift docs:

Swift provides first-class support for throwing, catching, propagating, and manipulating recoverable errors at runtime.

Errors are not exceptional circumstances. Recoverable errors are expected and should be planned for.

A function marked as throws returns an unsuccessful result of type Error and the compiler forces the programmer to handle both the success and error cases. do and catch are like specialized switch and case keywords for when a function might return a success or error value and offer the pattern matching features one expects.

And yes, there is rethrows to propagate an error up the function stack. I’ve done the exact same thing in scala to “slipstream” an error from a Result up during things like a web request. This is control flow using types and pattern matching and I am very glad that it’s built into the language and not something I have to build on my own each time.

The word try is the perfect way to explain what I’m trying to accomplish: try this and if it doesn’t work out then I’ll handle it this other way. do isn’t my favorite word for the start of the try/catch situation, but I can’t think of anything better.

I’m not a swift expert, I don’t use it everyday, and I’d like to hear what you think about this subject. Should swift add a Result enum anyway and let the programmer choose between throws and Result? Or would that fragment libraries where some throw while others are all enums all the way?

Thanks for reading.