I apologize for all the typos I make, I’m way too tired and it’s already late night for me. (I just feel like I need to apologize :] )
I meant: Anything else I may need to change to drive my proposal into that direction? -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 28. Juni 2016 um 00:17:35, Adrian Zubarev ([email protected]) schrieb: If you want consistent behavior, the proposal should just be “remove access modifiers from extensions”. That way, access for members follows the same defaults as in the original type. The only purpose for access modifiers on extensions is to change the default, so if you don’t like the behavior of changing the default, then the feature should be removed. I’m a little confused right now, because to me “remove access modifiers from extensions” sounds like there will be no access modifier at all. And yes I indeed don’t like that behavior, because it has a lot potential of confusion. Don’t get me wrong, now I do understand how it works, but the way it behaves is strange. If we’d remove this feature, would extensions automatically work like I described in the proposal? internal protocol A { func foo() } public struct B {} // A is hidden public extension B : A { // `foo` can be made visible public func foo() {} } // extension will be imported as public extension B { public func foo() } Anything else I made need to change to drive my proposal into that direction? I really appreciate your feedback. :) -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
