> On 30 Jun 2016, at 11:22, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> It is an interesting suggestion to use extensions that way, but how would you
> nest and create diffrent label pathes with extensions?
>
> We also cannot nest extensions (yet) and when it comes to conformances the
> access modier is not allowed on extensions. That is one of my points to
> remove this behavior from extensions and have equal access contol on
> extensions like on classes etc.!
How about just allowing more periods in the naming? Like so:
struct A {}
public extension A.foo {
func someMethod() { … } // a.foo.someMethod()
}
private extension A.foo.bar {
func someHiddenMethod() { … } // a.foo.bar.someHiddenMethod()
}
// Alternatively:
extension A {
public func foo.someMethod() { … }
private func foo.bar.someHiddenMethod() { … }
}
I suppose it lacks the kind of visual hierarchy that grouping within the type
could achieve, but at the same time such grouping could get unwieldy quickly
due to implementation details growing the vertical height until the structure
becomes unclear. This is why I'd favour extensions personally. There could
still be call for both though, as a balance such as simple properties and
methods declared hierarchically within the type, vs large methods moved out
into extensions, letting us mix and match however we like. I do think that the
extension one should be considered though, as it's a recommended way to handle
code structure in Swift I think, or at least I'm addicted to using it ;)_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
