> On 10 Apr 2017, at 05:08, Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This struck me as a bit odd at first, but the more I think about it, the >> more I really like the ability to nest extensions/scopes. The one issue I >> see is sticking that public extension inside a private one. I think you >> would have to mark ‘secret: Int’ as private instead of the extension itself >> to allow the effect you are looking for... >> >> What I ultimately want is the ability to declare storage in extensions in >> the same submodule. Combining that with fileprivate will allow the same >> tricks without the indentation (together in their own file). This nesting >> will help in the mean-time (and would still be useful after for those who >> prefer to organize their code in fewer/longer files). I think it could be >> helpful in other ways too… > > What do you think of `partial` types like C# but limited to a file? > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wbx7zzdd.aspx > > https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170403/035360.html >
That's the direction the new proposal (0169) is going towards with extensions in the same file. > >> >> Thanks, >> Jon >> >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Imho there is a simple solution to reach the goals of SE-0169 without >>> breaking compatibility: >>> Just allow extensions inside type declarations. >>> >>> class MyVC: UIViewController { >>> private let numberOfSections = 0 >>> >>> extension: UITableViewDataSource { >>> // Skipping the class and assume we want to extend the surrounding >>> type >>> func numberOfSections(in tableView: UITableView) -> Int { >>> return numberOfSections >>> } >>> >>> func tableView(_ tableView: UITableView, numberOfRowsInSection >>> section: Int) -> Int { >>> return 0 >>> } >>> } >>> >>> private extension { >>> // this would contain everything that shoudn't be visible for other >>> extensios >>> >>> var secret: Int = 0 >>> >>> public extension MyFriendClass { >>> // oh, well, I make an exception here for a trustworthy type >>> func checkSecret(of controller: MyVC) -> Bool { >>> return controller.secret > 0 >>> } >>> } >>> >>> private extension { >>> // this is so secret, I'm not even allowed to copy it >>> } >>> } >>> >>> public func myMethod() { >>> print("This is just a boring method") >>> } >>> } >>> >>> It has the downside of shifting code to the right (you could as well leave >>> those extension-blocks unindented), but lots of advantages: >>> - No change for private needed >>> - It can be nested as much as you like to satisfy even the most absurd >>> desires of encapsulation >>> - It reminds me on operator definitions inside type declarations >>> - No change for fileprivate needed (but actually, I think there is very >>> little need to keep fileprivate) >>> >>> I wish this would only be a joke, but writing the example, I actually >>> started liking the concept (but I have a terrible headache right now which >>> might affect my mind) — so either this receives some feedback, or I might >>> start re-proposing this ;-) >>> >>> - Tino >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
