> That would work as well, but it has the downside of forcing a potentially
> huge number of methods to be implemented in a single place, reducing the
> readability as opposed to packing them into semantically related groups in
> the form of extensions.
I really don't get why people are so obsessed with same-file extensions:
They are recommended in style guides, influencers blog about them, and they
motivated a ridiculous complex change in the access rights system. Yet I
haven't seen any evidence that they offer real benefit.
Extensions are great for adding useful helpers to existing types, and still
allow you to selectively expose details of your own classes — but most people
seem to ignore those options and focus on something can be done better with
plain old comments.
[sorry for the rant — but I think a critical look at extensions is long
overdue: I rarely see someone questioning their role, so basically, we are
making important decisions based on pure superstition]
A protocol itself is already a vehicle to group related methods, and if you
have a huge entity, it doesn't get better just because you split it and hide
its complexity.
> Also, please include the original message for reference purposes.
[hopes Discourse will happen soon ;-) ]
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
