Regards (From mobile) > On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:43 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am I understanding your feedback right that you’re in favor of this: > > public class func member1() {} > public class func member2() {} > public class func member3() {} > public class func member4() {} > public class func member5() {} > Instead of: > > public class group { > > func member1() {} > func member2() {} > func member3() {} > func member4() {} > func member5() {} > } > And you’re argument is ‘scrolling back’? > No sure i understand your point here. The problem i see with this proposal is that what may look quaint with empty methods in an email will turn into a practicality nightmare with real code. If I recall, there was even a past argument from a core team member (chris?) about something different but alluding to a very similar lack-of-practicality-at-scale.
> > Am 29. Juni 2016 um 19:35:35, L. Mihalkovic ([email protected]) > schrieb: > >> -1 looks like a kludgy hack. >> It will force people to have to scroll back to the declaration of a group >> (with no assistance to find where it is) in order to ascertain the >> visibility of a given method, while pushing code further to the right for >> every single method. Couple that with the zealous following of the 80c rules >> and that makes for a less than stellar coding experience... all in the name >> of not have to type a modifier. >> Regards > > _______________________________________________ > 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
