[swift-evolution] Proposal: SwiftPM Target Access Control

Ankit Agarwal ankit at ankit.im
Fri Jul 8 03:23:12 CDT 2016

I agree with Tanner, an AccessControl enum clearly defines the access of a
target and provides flexibility for future.

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Tanner Nelson <me at tanner.xyz> wrote:

> Really happy to see this proposal. It will cut build times for packages
> that use my library significantly.
> The only point I would bring up is about using a `Bool` for `isPrivate`.
> This obviously only gives us 2 levels of access control. Something like
> this would give more flexibility:
> enum AccessControl {
>     case .public
>     case .private
> }
> Target(name: "SampleCLI", dependencies: ["FooCore"], access: .private)
> Packages could possibly want more fine grained control over the access
> control. e.g, Package Foo wants only packages that *directly* depend on
> Foo to receive a module, but not packages that depend on a package Bar that
> depends on Foo. This would be much easier to add as an additional case to
> the `enum AccessControl` but impossible to add for `isPrivate: Bool`
> Thanks Ankit for the great proposal!
> Tanner

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160708/941eba5c/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list