I agree with Tanner, an AccessControl enum clearly defines the access of a target and provides flexibility for future.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Tanner Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > Really happy to see this proposal. It will cut build times for packages > that use my library significantly. > > The only point I would bring up is about using a `Bool` for `isPrivate`. > This obviously only gives us 2 levels of access control. Something like > this would give more flexibility: > > enum AccessControl { > case .public > case .private > } > > Target(name: "SampleCLI", dependencies: ["FooCore"], access: .private) > > > Packages could possibly want more fine grained control over the access > control. e.g, Package Foo wants only packages that *directly* depend on > Foo to receive a module, but not packages that depend on a package Bar that > depends on Foo. This would be much easier to add as an additional case to > the `enum AccessControl` but impossible to add for `isPrivate: Bool` > > Thanks Ankit for the great proposal! > Tanner > -- Ankit
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
