This is unduly restrictive; @_versioned (despite being the wrong spelling) is what we want here. To be callable from an inlinable function, internal things need only be visible in terms of public ABI, not necessarily inlinable, just as public things need only be public and not necessarily inlinable. On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 16:37 Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Slava Pestov <spes...@apple.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for taking a look! >> >> > On Oct 2, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky < >> nevin.brackettrozin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 3. Even though @inlinable will have no effect on declarations which are >> not public, we should still allow it to be placed there. That way when the >> access level is later changed to be public, the attribute is already where >> it should be. This is similar to why we permit, eg., members of an internal >> type to be declared public, which was discussed and decided previously on >> Swift Evolution. >> >> This is an interesting point. Do you think the attribute should be >> completely ignored, or should the restrictions on references to non-public >> things, etc still be enforced? >> > > Hmm, good question! > > I rather like the idea Greg Parker put forth, where non-public @inlinable > items can be used by public @inlinable ones, which implies that the > restrictions should indeed still apply—something @inlinable can only > reference public or @inlinable things. > > Nevin > _______________________________________________ > 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
