> * What is your evaluation of the proposal? -1. I'd like to split my review of this proposal in its two features:
The loss of extensions as an access modifier grouping construct is what I really dislike. IMHO, extensions are a natural way to express that, and I wouldn't want to have `group` to achieve the same results. But being explicit about the access of a protocol conformance seems like a nice feature to me. But not enough to warrant the above loss. > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to > Swift? I'm not sure the problem really warrants a change. > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? I don't think so. I have the impression it makes the rules more complicated. > * If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, > how do you feel that this proposal compares to those? No. > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, > or an in-depth study? Serious read. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
