On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Slava Pestov <spes...@apple.com> wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look! > > > On Oct 2, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky < > nevin.brackettrozin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 3. Even though @inlinable will have no effect on declarations which are > not public, we should still allow it to be placed there. That way when the > access level is later changed to be public, the attribute is already where > it should be. This is similar to why we permit, eg., members of an internal > type to be declared public, which was discussed and decided previously on > Swift Evolution. > > This is an interesting point. Do you think the attribute should be > completely ignored, or should the restrictions on references to non-public > things, etc still be enforced? > Hmm, good question! I rather like the idea Greg Parker put forth, where non-public @inlinable items can be used by public @inlinable ones, which implies that the restrictions should indeed still apply—something @inlinable can only reference public or @inlinable things. Nevin
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
