I wouldn't mind it being treated just as a bunch of getters and setters. On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Paul Cantrell via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2015, at 10:45 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > when you stuff a lot of functionality into a single class in most OO > languages, there’s no real way to enforce its division into subsystems, > because every method has direct access to every property and every other > method. In contrast, in Swift you can divide that class into distinct > components with their own interface, state, and invariants, essentially > making each component as good as its own type as far as encapsulation goes. > > Can you elaborate on this, John? Extensions and protocols in Swift today > still don’t solve the problem that shared _private_ class state has to be > centralized. Or were you speaking as if this “properties in extensions” > proposal were already implemented? > > Cheers, > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > -- Wizard ja...@supmenow.com +44 7523 279 698
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
