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
