Separating multiple if conditions with commas in Swift

Question

We already know multiple optional bindings can be used in a single if/guard statement by separating them with commas, but not with && e.g.

Answer 1

In Swift 3, the where keyword in condition clauses were replaced by a comma instead.

So a statement like if 1 == 1, 2 == 2 {} is saying "if 1 equals 1 where 2 equals 2..."

It's probably easiest to read a conditional statement with an && instead of a ,, but the results are the same.

You can read more about the details of the change in Swift 3 in the Swift Evolution proposal: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0099-conditionclauses.md

Answer 2

When it comes to evaluating boolean comma-separated conditions, the easies way to think of a comma is a pair or brackets. So, if you have

if true, false || true {}

It gets transformed into

if true && (false || true) {}

Answer 3

When pattern matching a associated value in a switch, it matters when using a , or &&. One compiles, the other won't (Swift 5.1). This compiles (&&):

enum SomeEnum {
    case integer(Int)
}

func process(someEnum: SomeEnum) {
    switch someEnum {
    // Compiles
    case .integer(let integer) where integer > 10 && integer < 10:
        print("hi")
    default:
        fatalError()
    }
}

This won't (,):

enum SomeEnum {
    case integer(Int)
}

func process(someEnum: SomeEnum) {
    switch someEnum {
    // Compiles
    case .integer(let integer) where integer > 10, integer < 10:
        print("hi")
    default:
        fatalError()
    }
}

Answer 4

https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/ReferenceManual/Statements.html#grammar_condition-list

The Swift grammar says that the if statement condition-list can be composed by multiple condition separated by commas ,

A simple condition can be a boolean expression, a optional-binding-condition or other things:

So, using the comma to separate multiple expressions is perfectly fine.

Answer 5

Here is a case where they are sufficiently different as to require the ,. The following code will yield

'self' captured by a closure before all members were initialized

class User: NSObject, NSCoding {

    public var profiles: [Profile] = []    
    private var selectedProfileIndex : Int = 0

    public required init?(coder aDecoder: NSCoder) {
        // self.profiles initialized here

        let selectedIndex : Int = 100
        if 0 <= selectedIndex && selectedIndex < self.profiles.count {  <--- error here
            self.selectedProfileIndex = selectedIndex
        }

        super.init()
    }

...
}

This is due to the definition of && on Bool:

static func && (lhs: Bool, rhs: @autoclosure () throws -> Bool) rethrows -> Bool

The selectedIndex < self.profiles.count on the RHS is caught in a closure.

Changing the && to , will get rid of the error. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how , is defined, but I thought that this was interesting.

Answer 6

Actually the result is not the same. Say that you have 2 statements in an if and && between them. If in the first one you create a let using optional binding, you won't be able to see it in the second statement. Instead, using a comma, you will.

Comma example:

if let cell = tableView.cellForRow(at: IndexPath(row: n, section: 0)), cell.isSelected {
    //Everything ok
}

&& Example:

if let cell = tableView.cellForRow(at: IndexPath(row: n, section: 0)) && cell.isSelected {
    //ERROR: Use of unresolved identifier 'cell'              
}

Hope this helps.