On March 21, 2017 at 9:18:00 PM, Xiaodi Wu ([email protected]) wrote:
You're not hearing the argument. No one "accidentally" included this design as
part of SE-0025; it's sentence number one.
To quote this in context:
Scoped access level allows hiding implementation details of a class or a class
extension at the class/extension level, instead of a file. It is a concise
expression of the intent that a particular part of a class or extension
definition is there only to implement a public API for other classes or
extensions and must not be used directly anywhere outside of the scope of the
class or the extension.
I can see how an adversarial reading of the first sentence would argue that
implementation details are not actually hidden by your example (which is, for
the record, technically correct, the best kind of correct :-). However, the
second sentence clarifies which kind of implementation details we mean to hide
– the accidental use of members outside the scope.
Your example does not involve hiding in that sense, so while it is interesting,
and a bug, and should be fixed, etc., it does not thwart the practicable goal
of the proposal.
And no one just "forgot" to make the code above work; it simply can't be
accommodated by the current mangling scheme.
The Swift mangling scheme changes with some frequency, I know of around 3 revs
offhand and I do not work in that area often. So holding this up as an
immovable object is odd.
Things would be different if we declared a stable ABI, but we did not, etc.
And--what's more--_no one seems to be bothered by it_.
I volunteer to be bothered by it. Where’s my cookie?
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
