On 01.10.2017 1:18, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Sep 29, 2017, at 10:42 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Vladimir, I agree with you on that change, but it’s a separate topic from this
one.
Tony is absolutely correct that this topic has already been discussed. It is a
deliberate design decision that public types do not automatically expose
members without explicit access modifiers; this has been brought up on this
list, and it is clearly not in scope for discussion as no new insight can arise
this late in the game. The inconsistency with public extensions was brought up,
the proposed solution was to remove modifiers for extensions, but this proposal
was rejected. So, the final design is what we have.
Agreed. The core team would only consider a refinement or change to access
control if there were something actively broken that mattered for ABI stability.
So we have to live with *protected* extension inconsistency for very long time just
because core team don't want to even discuss _this particular_ inconsistency(when
access level in *private extension* must be private, not fileprivate)?
Yes, we decided that access level for extension will mean a default and top most
access level for nested methods, OK. But even in this rule, which already differ from
access modifiers for types, we have another one special case for 'private extension'.
Don't you think this is not normal situation and actually there IMO can't be any
reason to keep this bug-producing inconsistency in Swift? (especially given Swift 5
seems like is a last moment to fix this)
Vladimir.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
