> On 30 Jun 2016, at 11:04, Haravikk via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> This form is interesting, but personally when it comes to grouping I've
> become a huge fan of using focused extensions, meaning my type declarations
> are usually nothing but the bare minimum definition for stored properties and
> required constructors, everything else goes into the most relevant extension.
>
> As such it seems to me like this feature request could be handled by two
> features; named extensions, and access modifiers on extensions, so I could do
> something like so:
>
> public struct A { … }
>
> // My awesome labelName implementation
> public extension A.labelName {
> func member4() { … }
> func member5() { … }
> func member6() { … }
> }
>
> Here the public modifier changes the default for functions without a modifier
> of their own, purely for convenience (as they can still be overridden if I
> need a private method to implement them) and the label lets me organise them
> under the parent type. Multiple such extensions could be specified for the
> same label, with their own default access and/or type constraints.
>
> So yeah, grouping is handy, but I think that extensions already provide a
> good way to achieve this, and it would make more sense to focus any additions
> onto them.
Sorry for the immediate followup, but somehow I forgot that we can already have
access modifiers on extensions for setting the default, so really all that's
needed to meet the remaining needs of the proposal seems to be named
extensions. I seem to recall a proposal for this may already exist but can't
find it, anyone remember and have a link handy?
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
