I feel like I’ve seen this discussion somewhere on the mailing list before. If
I remember correctly or it could be only me, this behavior is by design,
because you don’t want to open your API implicitly to everyone. Internally it
won’t hurt your module, but only allow you to write less code and use the type
right away.
It might be your intention of using this init(firstName:lastName) only
internally, but disallow the module user from being able to construct that type
manually. (The current behavior.)
Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here ;)
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
Am 18. Januar 2017 um 16:33:22, Dave Reed via swift-users
(swift-users@swift.org) schrieb:
I’m teaching an iOS with Swift this semester and one of my students pointed out
that:
struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}
does create a default initializer that you can call as:
p = Person(firstName: “Dave”, lastName: “Reed”)
but if you write:
public struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}
The default initializer is still internal so if you want it to be public, you
have to write it yourself (i.e.)
public struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
public init(firstName: String, lastName: String) {
self.firstName = firstName
self.lastName = lastName
}
}
Is there a way around this (other than writing it)? We both agree it would be
reasonable/nice that the default initializer have the same protection level as
the struct itself.
Thanks,
Dave Reed
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
