I agree with the common theme that `@abiPublic` is weird. I imagine that not a 
lot of `@abiPublic` symbols actually want to be internal: they'll almost all be 
implementation details that really want to be `private` or `fileprivate` but 
that have to be `internal` to satisfy what (I believe) most people would 
consider to be a leaky abstraction provided by the Swift language. So why not 
go all the way and force @inlinable code to only reference public declarations?

What do we get in exchange of subverting the thus-far clear meaning of 
`internal`? Why is it better to have a special kind of internal that is not 
internal, instead of a special kind of public that is not listed, or even just 
no special kind of public?

That detail aside, having the ability to do cross-module inlining and 
specializing is valuable and exciting.


> Le 20 déc. 2017 à 19:19, Ted Kremenek via swift-evolution 
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> a écrit :
> The review of "SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization" begins now 
> and runs through January 5, 2018.
> The proposal is available here:
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md
> Reviews are an important part of the Swift evolution process. All review 
> feedback should be sent to the swift-evolution mailing list at:
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> or, if you would like to keep your feedback private, directly to the review 
> manager. 
> When replying, please try to keep the proposal link at the top of the message:
> Proposal link: 
> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0193-cross-module-inlining-and-specialization.md
> ...
> Reply text
> ...
> Other replies
> What goes into a review of a proposal?
> The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review 
> through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of 
> Swift. 
> When reviewing a proposal, here are some questions to consider:
> What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to 
> Swift?
> Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
> If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do 
> you feel that this proposal compares to those?
> How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or 
> an in-depth study?
> Thanks,
> Ted Kremenek
> Review Manager
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to