Can you elaborate? What understanding of extensions is lacking in this proposal? On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 22:30 L. Mihalkovic via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> > Regards > (From mobile) > > On Jul 16, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Wrong thread ;) If you think it’s ill-prepared than provide some feedback > instead of just watching and waiting to throw negative feedback during > review process. > > There is a lot done, but it’s not visible to the public thread yet. Will > be soon (by tomorrow I’d guess). > > Thanks. > > > A question i regularly ponder on with modern opensource is how it went so > fast from stallman writting gcc to today's anything-goes, where there seems > to be an expectatation that throwing even the worst unfinished piece of > code in the public should implicitely gag others, and only compel them to > have to fix it. > There has always been great as well as ludicrous ideas in the history of > mankind, and it would be a rare privilege of the opensource movement that > the latter ought not to be singled out as such, and have them become by > their mere presence in the public, everyone's responsibility to improve > upon. > This proposal was based on a lack of understanding of extensions. My > understand of the process is that the initial discussion phase is there to > evaluate an idea leaving, only the promissing ones reach proposal stage. > > > > -- > Adrian Zubarev > Sent with Airmail > > Am 16. Juli 2016 um 21:21:59, L. Mihalkovic (laurent.mihalko...@gmail.com) > schrieb: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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