I totally agree. For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of "folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather than some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project folder that at times can leave on one confused.
My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to decide what is a folder. Does that sound ok? Kind regards, Jim Malak Director Beryle & Lee, Inc, O +1-330-818-2600 M +1-234-716-2658 F +1-330-818-2560 email/Skype: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://beryle-lee.com http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc ________________________________ From: Aron Lindberg <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM To: Adrian Zubarev Cc: Jim Malak; [email protected] Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate? I think this is a great idea! I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho. On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I'm probably still sleepy. -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) schrieb: You haven't seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate yet. :D ________________________________ @core-team: See what you have done with >>file<<private thing. typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers. [facepalm] Instead of just going with private private(file) // for new one private(type) I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we have fileprivate now. ________________________________ Anyways let's be a little more constructive here. Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that falls into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I'm wrong here. -- Adrian Zubarev Sent with Airmail Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) schrieb: My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and restrict their use to the object type I am extending as long as everything is in one file via fileprivate. I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory that contains my associated extensions (also in separate files) and be able to restrict the access of appropriate properties and methods to that common directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate files based on function. I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be using instead? Kind regards, Jim Malak _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
