+1
Exactly in this example I'd probably want to have this to make it all clear
regarding 'things':
struct Foo : A,B {
typealias A.Thing = Int
typealias B.Thing = String
func foo(x: Int) { }
func bar(x: String) { }
}
On 20.05.2016 18:21, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution wrote:
I think namespaces are definitely worth exploring.
Here's something that might be interesting to research. Right now, you can
have two protocols that have associated types with the same name. If you
adopt both protocols, you have to make the associated types the same, even
if they really don't have anything to do with each other. I think this
might be a good argument for how namespaces can make your code more expressive:
protocolA {
associatedtypeThing
funcfoo(x: Thing)
}
protocolB {
associatedtypeThing
funcbar(x: Thing)
}
structFoo : A, B{
funcfoo(x: Int) { }
// Error: type 'Foo' does not conform to protocol 'B'
// protocol requires function 'bar' with type 'Thing'
funcbar(x: String) { }
}
In this example, I want to use "Int" for A's Thing type, and "String" for
B's Thing type, but I can't.
Best,
Austin
On May 20, 2016, at 5:16 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I want to revive this topic.
Is there any technical reason why we can’t have namespaces in Swift? I’ve
found just a few threads about namespaces, but most of them had arguments
to use modules instead.
I’m fine with modules but they just don’t serve everything I would want
to. I can’t enforce the developer to use the modules name if there is no
naming conflict.
I asked in the SwiftPM mail list for a easier Xcode integration of
modules, but the response is exactly the opposite for using modules for
namespaces (read below).
If I’m building one huge project I don’t want to build a lot of different
modules just shiny namespaces and clean code.
So I ask the community again why can’t we have optional namespaces?
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
Am 19. Mai 2016 bei 22:33:19, Daniel Dunbar ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>) schrieb:
Right now modules are most appropriately used at the same granularity
that frameworks or shared libraries would be used in C/Obj-C/C++. This
is the situation for which the variety of access control modifiers in
Swift and things like Whole Module Optimization were designed for. While
there are a lot of reasons to like modules as a way to provide
namespaces, they really haven't been designed to provide these very fine
grained namespaces.
My guess is that the right answer here doesn't really involve the Xcode
integration, but rather figuring out the right way that these concepts
fit into the language in a first class way. I would expect concepts like
submodules or namespaces to be language concepts that Xcode just
exposes, not something that was coupled together.
- Daniel
On May 18, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-build-dev
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I’d like to discuss an idea that will make development in Xcode
easier. I assume that SwiftPM will see its Xcode integration when the
final version will be released.
Problem I’ll try to describe is mostly about namespaces. Right now some
people abuses enums, struct or classes to create a namespace for a
specific need.
class Reference {
class String { … }
class Character {
enum Error { … }
}
private init() {}
}
This will create a pseudo namespace for the nested types:
* Reference.String
* Reference.Character
* Reference.Character.Error
One could argue of using modules instead of abusing a class here, which
is a great argument.
The problem that comes to my mind here is that we will have to create
subprojects inside our main project file and using the references to
them just to achieve that shiny namespace.
One could also use SwiftPM, which is awesome, but there is a need to
re-build the module if any changes have been done. As soon as we’ll
create some complex dependencies between different modules this will
get messy.
Before posting here I asked Joe Groff if there is any mailing list I
can use to discuss my idea. He told me this might be a good place,
because I was referring to the package manager. Then I’ve done my
research to not create any redundant thread, but I only found one topic
about the integration of SwiftPM in
Xcode:
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-build-dev/Week-of-Mon-20160215/000272.html
So here are my thoughts about a deeper integration of SwiftPM here:
- What if Xcode will introduce two new types of groups (the folder
color could be orange like Swift for example, or even contain the bird
icon).
- These groups are analogous to already existing group types except
they’ll represent Swift modules / packages
- Basically we’ll have a single project file with multiple modules,
where these modules should only exist inside that project (this is my
own need right now)
- Such a package / module group will have a configurable utilities,
where one could configure the modules
- This will reduce the re-building process, allow us to keep everything
(not only .a or we’ll be able to hide .a files and just keep the
sourcefiles inside such groups) inside a single project, *gain the
shiny namespaces like above*, and make the file management way easier
- This also should allow us create cross-dependencies if there is a
good need for that in our project
+ MainProject
|
+—Reference (module)
|
+—+— Magic (module)
|
+— SomeSubMagic (module)
We could easily create cross dependencies between modules here by just
using the modules names and the types they provide.
// SomeSubMagic is a sub module of Magic
class SomeSubMagic {
var magic: Magic // referring to its parent module
}
What do you think about this?
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
_______________________________________________
swift-build-dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-build-dev
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
