> On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Adrian Zubarev <adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com>
> wrote:
>
> Can you check this translation, and maybe based on it’s (possible) mistakes
> provide better examples in the next proposal draft on how one should think
> with the new pure access model.
>
> open class A {
>
> open internal(set) var abc: Int = 42
>
> public static func foo() {}
>
> open class func bar() {}
> }
>
> access(inherit, everywhere) class A {
>
> access(override, everywhere) access(set, submodule) var abc: Int = 42
This is correct, although it’s worth noting that the `internal(set)` or
`access(set, submodule)` is unnecessary. You’re just re-stating the default
availability of the setter.
>
> // implicit 'call'
> access(everywhere) access(override, nowhere) access(type) func foo() {}
>
> access(override, everywhere) access(type) func bar() {}
> }
As I noted in my previous reply we’re not going to replace `static` and `class`
with this model. Access control is not the appropriate place to distinguish
type vs instance members.
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 3. März 2017 um 20:12:28, Adrian Zubarev (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com
> <mailto:adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com>) schrieb:
>
>> If I understand the model correctly, then classes structs and enums will
>> have an addition capability for their members.
>>
>> static = access(type) access(override, nowhere)
>>
>> class = access(type) access(override, everywhere)
>>
>> You could combine type into one parameterized access, and make the
>> capability instance the default one, so it will be either or but we don’t
>> have to write instance explicitly like we don’t need it with get.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrian Zubarev
>> Sent with Airmail
>>
>> Am 3. März 2017 um 19:36:31, Adrian Zubarev (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com
>> <mailto:adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com>) schrieb:
>>
>>> I actually found the source, and it’s even an official one. :)
>>>
>>> https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Declarations.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014097-CH34-ID483
>>>
>>> <https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Swift/Conceptual/Swift_Programming_Language/Declarations.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40014097-CH34-ID483>
>>> NOTE
>>>
>>> In a class declaration, the static keyword has the same effect as marking
>>> the declaration with both the class and final declaration modifiers.
>>> It’s overlapping but you might be able to adjust the behavior to cover that
>>> in your model as well ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Adrian Zubarev
>>> Sent with Airmail
>>>
>>> Am 3. März 2017 um 18:14:42, Matthew Johnson (matt...@anandabits.com
>>> <mailto:matt...@anandabits.com>) schrieb:
>>>
>>>> It would be really helpful if you can find a reference to this somewhere.
>>>> If it’s possible to define static in terms of this system also that would
>>>> be pretty cool.
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
