If a submodule doesn't provide self contained functionality then it shouldn't be a submodule, and if it does then it might as well be a separate module. I think submodules would discourage small granular module development and composition at a larger scale, it would discourage making a clean public interface for the module which might make them more reusable and testable. Also of course it would mean more keywords/syntax/classifiers to manage it which makes things more complicated (unnecessarily in my view).
But I haven't really thought much about potential advantages... what are they? On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 at 19:55 Sean Heber via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > This was all already argued about *extensively*. As in.. for weeks and > weeks. > > For the record, I still think things are mis-named, but that ship has > sailed. IMO the existing “fileprivate” should have been “internal” and > existing “internal” should have been “external”. But oh well. > > l8r > Sean > > > > On Sep 27, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In another thread (no link because we’re not on a forum ;-) the idea was > raised that in the future, if and when Swift starts using submodules, the > “fileprivate” scope could be turned into “submodule” scope. > > > > By default every file would constitute its own submodule, and developers > could choose to put several files together into a submodule if they wish. > > > > Perhaps there may be a shorter word that nicely implies “submodule > scope”. > > > > Nevin > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 27 Sep 2016, at 14:20, Zach Waldowski via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 01:34 AM, Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution > > > wrote: > > >> As for dropping file private, why? You don’t have to use it if you > don’t > > >> want to, so it’s not hurting you. On the other hand, I can use it > when I > > >> deem it to be the right thing to do. > > > > > > I'll politely disagree and point out you *must* use fileprivate in > order > > > to get what it provides. It's unavoidable in that sense. > > > > That’s not the point I was making. It was mooted that fileprivate should > be dropped altogether leading to not having any means of specifying file > scope at all. I was simply pointing out that people who don’t like file > scope already have the option of not using fileprivate. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
