I don’t see why “parts” would need to be named. That seems overly complex for little benefit.
> On Nov 1, 2017, at 7:43 AM, Mike Kluev via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> On 1 November 2017 at 13:34, Wallacy <walla...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Partial (like in C#) is good enough. > > "partial" will not read correctly in this context: > > class ViewController: UIViewController { > partial DataSource // ?! > ... > } > > partial DataSource of ViewController: UITableViewDataSource { // ?! > } > > if you mean: > > partial class ViewController: UITableViewDataSource { > ... > } > > this is not what i'm suggesting. parts/continuations must have a name and > this name must be listed in a ledger (of the main class or another part of > it) for the part to be able to exist at all. > > having the "main" part (just the normal class definition) is good for: > > - it is the only place to put base class in (like the above UIViewController) > > - it has the starting ledger that list parts (direct sub-parts). all parts > can be found "recursively" from that starting point. > > with "parts" many pieces that are extensions today will become parts. and > "private" to "fileprivate" promotion feature will likely not be needed > anymore (we can of course leave it as is for compatibility). > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > 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