> On Apr 11, 2017, at 10:45 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > I don't want to make any change until Chris has been able to chime in. If he > agrees with us, what should be done?
The rationale here is to propose the minimal thing that improves the (bad) access control situation we have today, while leaving open this direction for future discussion. I’m trying to factor potentially large N*M controversy into N+M controversy. -Chris > > • Immediate change in the proposal? > • Would it have to go through a new review? > • Or can the Core Team make the change if it is accepted? > > On 11 Apr 2017, at 19:01, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com > <mailto:rjmcc...@apple.com>> wrote: > >> >>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 12:00 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11 Apr 2017, at 16:27, Matthew Johnson <matt...@anandabits.com >>> <mailto:matt...@anandabits.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 8:53 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution >>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Apr 2017, at 13:29, Jonathan Hull <jh...@gbis.com >>>>>> <mailto:jh...@gbis.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 3:53 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution >>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Apr 2017, at 09:40, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com >>>>>>> <mailto:rjmcc...@apple.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2017, at 1:34 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution >>>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> On 11 Apr 2017, at 01:37, Ricardo Parada via swift-evolution >>>>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have not voted in favor or against the proposal. I have been >>>>>>>>>> reading a lot of responses but I agree with Tony. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When I started reading the proposal everything was more or less fine >>>>>>>>>> half way through the proposal because it was reverting private to >>>>>>>>>> fileprivate between the type and its extensions within the same >>>>>>>>>> file. I said, if you think of the type and its extensions as a unit >>>>>>>>>> then it makes sense. I can explain that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then it started describing a different behavior among the extensions >>>>>>>>>> located in a file separate from the file containing the definition >>>>>>>>>> of the type. That just started a whole debate inside my head and I >>>>>>>>>> understand the passionate responses on both sides. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But then I imagined myself explaining this to someone new to Swift >>>>>>>>>> and it just doesn't seem right. If it becomes convoluted then that's >>>>>>>>>> a red flag that it does not belong in Swift. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I understand what you are saying and I wouldn't be against relaxing >>>>>>>>> that requirement (not talking for Chris here). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The model would change from "Types share scopes with their extensions >>>>>>>>> in the same file the type was defined" to "Types and their extensions >>>>>>>>> share the same scope in each file". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh, I had missed that somehow. I agree that that is a very strange >>>>>>>> rule. Do you know why it was proposed that way? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We had to take a stance and Chris seemed to prefer the rule that was >>>>>>> proposed. I didn't press because I'm sure he has reasons for preferring >>>>>>> it that way. But I have a preference for generalizing visibility to all >>>>>>> extensions, even to those in a different file than the type. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think there is a technical limitation if the visibility goes beyond >>>>>> the compilation unit (unless whole module optimization is turned on). >>>>> >>>>> I’m not suggesting visibility beyond the compilation unit. That would >>>>> break the hierarchy of visibility layers: accessibility levels have >>>>> always been contained in one-another and that’s why you can go from >>>>> private, to fileprivate, to internal, to public, to open (but not the >>>>> other way round) without the risk of any compilation error. If all scopes >>>>> of a type were visible to each other (whatever the file), you could not >>>>> go from private to fileprivate. >>>>> >>>>> I’m talking about extensions of the same type in the same file (but in a >>>>> separate file from the type) to be able to share private members: >>>>> >>>>> Type.swift >>>>> >>>>> struct A { >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Other.swift >>>>> >>>>> extension A { >>>>> func foo() { >>>>> bar() >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> extension A { >>>>> private func bar() { >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>> >>>> If this is not how your proposal already works I missed that aspect >>>> earlier and find it extremely perplexing (which is probably why I missed >>>> it). >>> >>> It's mentioned in the Derailed design section: >>> >>> This proposal does not change the behavior of extensions that are not in >>> the same file as the type - i.e., extensions in a seperate file to the type >>> do not share access between themselves: >>> >>> But I agree this should be changed if there is no major technical reason >>> against it. >> >> I'm not aware of any technical reason why extensions in the same file should >> not have access to each other's members. >> >> John. >> >>> >>>> It leaves scoped access working as in Swift 3 in exactly the case where it >>>> is least useful. We cannot place stored properties in any extensions, let >>>> alone extensions in a file other than the one containing the original >>>> declaration. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> swift-evolution mailing list >>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>>>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
