To me this is reminicent of what is happening with the T.Type / Type<T> story, where there seems to be a rush to throw a proposal under the cut-off date even if it is ill-prepared, or based on misunderstandinds. Regards (From mobile)
> On Jul 16, 2016, at 7:15 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > I tried to tackle the ability to write extensions where everyone would be > forced to write access modifier on member level. That’s what I had in my mind > all the time. But the respond on this was, as you can see purely negative. :D > > Making all extensions public when there is protocol conformance makes no > sense, because you could extend your type with an internal protocol, or the > extended type might be not public. > > Anyways, I’m withdrawing this proposal. :) > > > > -- > Adrian Zubarev > Sent with Airmail > > Am 16. Juli 2016 um 19:09:09, Paul Cantrell (cantr...@pobox.com) schrieb: > >> Because of all this, I have stopped using extension-level access modifiers >> altogether, instead always specifying access at the member level. I would be >> interested in a proposal to improve the current model — perhaps, for >> example, making “public extension” apply only to a protocol conformance, and >> disabling access modifiers on extensions that don’t have a protocol >> conformance. > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
