Why create "Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals", since that implies you know there's a value?

Before I can describe the use cases for Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals, you should already understand what Optionals and Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals are in Swift. If you do not, I recommend you first read my article on optionals

When To Use An Implicitly Unwrapped Optional

There are two main reasons that one would create an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional. All have to do with defining a variable that will never be accessed when nil because otherwise, the Swift compiler will always force you to explicitly unwrap an Optional.

1. A Constant That Cannot Be Defined During Initialization

Every member constant must have a value by the time initialization is complete. Sometimes, a constant cannot be initialized with its correct value during initialization, but it can still be guaranteed to have a value before being accessed.

Using an Optional variable gets around this issue because an Optional is automatically initialized with nil and the value it will eventually contain will still be immutable. However, it can be a pain to be constantly unwrapping a variable that you know for sure is not nil. Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals achieve the same benefits as an Optional with the added benefit that one does not have to explicitly unwrap it everywhere.

A great example of this is when a member variable cannot be initialized in a UIView subclass until the view is loaded:

class MyView: UIView {
    @IBOutlet var button: UIButton!
    var buttonOriginalWidth: CGFloat!

    override func awakeFromNib() {
        self.buttonOriginalWidth = self.button.frame.size.width
    }
}

Here, you cannot calculate the original width of the button until the view loads, but you know that awakeFromNib will be called before any other method on the view (other than initialization). Instead of forcing the value to be explicitly unwrapped pointlessly all over your class, you can declare it as an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional.

2. When Your App Cannot Recover From a Variable Being nil

This should be extremely rare, but if your app can not continue to run if a variable is nil when accessed, it would be a waste of time to bother testing it for nil. Normally if you have a condition that must absolutely be true for your app to continue running, you would use an assert. An Implicitly Unwrapped Optional has an assert for nil built right into it. Even then, it is often good to unwrap the optional and use a more descriptive assert if it is nil.

When Not To Use An Implicitly Unwrapped Optional

1. Lazily Calculated Member Variables

Sometimes you have a member variable that should never be nil, but it cannot be set to the correct value during initialization. One solution is to use an Implicitly Unwrapped Optional, but a better way is to use a lazy variable:

class FileSystemItem {
}

class Directory : FileSystemItem {
    lazy var contents : [FileSystemItem] = {
        var loadedContents = [FileSystemItem]()
        // load contents and append to loadedContents
        return loadedContents
    }()
}

Now, the member variable contents is not initialized until the first time it is accessed. This gives the class a chance to get into the correct state before calculating the initial value.

Note: This may seem to contradict #1 from above. However, there is an important distinction to be made. The buttonOriginalWidth above must be set during viewDidLoad to prevent anyone changing the buttons width before the property is accessed.

2. Everywhere Else

For the most part, Implicitly Unwrapped Optionals should be avoided because if used mistakenly, your entire app will crash when it is accessed while nil. If you are ever not sure about whether a variable can be nil, always default to using a normal Optional. Unwrapping a variable that is never nil certainly doesn't hurt very much.


Consider the case of an object that may have nil properties while it's being constructed and configured, but is immutable and non-nil afterwards (NSImage is often treated this way, though in its case it's still useful to mutate sometimes). Implicitly unwrapped optionals would clean up its code a good deal, with relatively low loss of safety (as long as the one guarantee held, it would be safe).

(Edit) To be clear though: regular optionals are nearly always preferable.


Implicitly unwrapped optionals are useful for presenting a property as non-optional when really it needs to be optional under the covers. This is often necessary for "tying the knot" between two related objects that each need a reference to the other. It makes sense when neither reference is actually optional, but one of them needs to be nil while the pair is being initialized.

For example:

// These classes are buddies that never go anywhere without each other
class B {
    var name : String
    weak var myBuddyA : A!
    init(name : String) {
        self.name = name
    }
}

class A {
    var name : String
    var myBuddyB : B
    init(name : String) {
        self.name = name
        myBuddyB = B(name:"\(name)'s buddy B")
        myBuddyB.myBuddyA = self
    }
}

var a = A(name:"Big A")
println(a.myBuddyB.name)   // prints "Big A's buddy B"

Any B instance should always have a valid myBuddyA reference, so we don't want to make the user treat it as optional, but we need it to be optional so that we can construct a B before we have an A to refer to.

HOWEVER! This sort of mutual reference requirement is often an indication of tight coupling and poor design. If you find yourself relying on implicitly unwrapped optionals you should probably consider refactoring to eliminate the cross-dependencies.

Tags:

Design Patterns

Swift

Optional

Recent Posts