I think having a different default access for nested-scope adds a significant
amount of cognitive complexity for not much value. I understand that structs
as nested types are often used to communicate values outside the score
(internal even), so public will be required often in these cases.
I'm not familiar with all of the discussions in other threads relating to this
issue that some are here, so forgive me if I'm running over old ground.
Looking back at the original use case that David B. posted my first instinct
was that this is a case that would best be solved by adding a
;> On Oct 26, 2016, at 5:40 AM, David Goodine via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> As usual, apologies if this horse was beaten ages ago before I joined the
>> mailing list, but thought I would bring
Hey all,
I don’t know if this is really an ‘evolution’ topic per se, and I’m not on
Swift Dev, but thought someone here could shed some light on this.
Often when developing code, if I need create mode switches (constant Bools) so
that I can move back and forth between different
gt; wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 19, 2016, at 5:50 AM, David Goodine via swift-evolution
>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> I don’t know if this is really an ‘evolution’ topic per se, and I’m not o
One thing I really like that Erica mentioned in the earlier discussion is the
case of guard unwrapping [weak self] in closures. I've taken to creating an
alternate self (guard let ss = self else { return }) constant and using that.
But it always felt inelegant. The proposed case works without
-1 as well, particularly agreeing with Rimantas that removing something of use
because it confuses new programmers is not a good motivation. To paraphrase
Einstein, “A programming language should be as simple as possible, but no
simpler.”
-d
> On Oct 26, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Rimantas Liubertas
Hey all,
As usual, apologies if this horse was beaten ages ago before I joined the
mailing list, but thought I would bring this up.
I was typing the above (for the hundredth time) the other day and I was
wondering whether it might be worth considering offering a shorter syntax:
guard let x,