>
> I would really like to see submodules, but I think there would still be valid
> uses for `fileprivate` even with them. But of course we would need to know
> the details of submodules to have a good discussion about that so it’s a
> topic for the future. :)
>
> I wonder what became of this:
> https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/Modules.rst#id18
> <https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/Modules.rst#id18>
As the author of that document, it became clear (or maybe “it became murky”)
that everyone wants different things from submodules, both for compiling their
own targets and for importing other people’s targets. I’d almost suggest
avoiding the word if you want to propose any of myriad features related to them:
- importing a subset of APIs
- having APIs not imported by default with the top-level module
- C++ namespacing within a module
- C++ namespacing within another module
- breaking up compilation units (i.e. not compiling the entire module as one
unit)
- adding another access level between internal and fileprivate.
- adding another access level between fileprivate and private.
- something else?
(still catching up on the main thread, but I think Robert and Matthew are both
right: we need to explicitly amend the proposal, and the behavior we want is
fairly obvious)
Jordan
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
