> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How do private or fileprivate help extensions in general?
>
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md
<https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md>
> Is really laziness a strong argument over consistency and clarity?
>
>
What does ‘lazy’ have to do with anything in this proposal? Im confused.
I know that your desire is to make it consistent and thus clear but the reality
is that
this proposal ( and `group` ) would just make the language complex and really
confusing.
> As for your example I’d have a pretty good solution (I can’t say this will be
> accepted, but the idea is great, at least I think that way. I’d propose for
> that feature after Swift 3 drops):
>
> // Use correct consistent access control
> fileprivate extension Int {
>
> // every member of a nameless group would be `fileprivate`
> fileprivate group {
>
> func double() -> Int {
> return self*2
> }
>
> func member1() {}
> func member2() {}
> func member3() {}
> func member4() {}
> }
> }
> A group could do way more than just in this example:
> https://gist.github.com/DevAndArtist/c74f706febf93452999881335f6ca1f9
> <https://gist.github.com/DevAndArtist/c74f706febf93452999881335f6ca1f9>
> We’d move the behavior out into its own more powerful feature.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 28. Juni 2016 um 03:14:08, Jose Cheyo Jimenez ([email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>) schrieb:
>
>> I would be against removing access modifiers on extensions. I actually don't
>> see anything wrong with the way extensions work with modifiers right now.
>> Consistency for consistency's sake is never a good measurement if it is not
>> addressing a pain point.
>>
>> When ever I extend a swift standard type, I always make it "fileprivate"
>> because I don't want to pollute autocomplete for that type.
>>
>> fileprivate extension Int {
>> func double() -> Int {
>> return self*2
>> }
>> }
>>
>> My understanding is that private / fileprivate was renamed/introduced to
>> help with extensions. I don't think extensions need anymore complexities. I
>> would hardly ever use private in swift 3 for example (when it gets
>> implemented.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
