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. Félix > 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 swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
