[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0119: Remove access modifiers from extensions

[T.J. Usiyan]

+1 from me. While I understand that this is convenient for some, I think
that the access modifier being separate from each specific
declaration/definition leads to issues stemming from the implicit
attributes.

On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> I tried to tackle the ability to write extensions where everyone would be
> forced to write access modifier on member level. That’s what I had in my
> mind all the time. But the respond on this was, as you can see purely
> negative. :D
>
> Making all extensions public when there is protocol conformance makes no
> sense, because you could extend your type with an internal protocol, or the
> extended type might be not public.
>
> Anyways, I’m withdrawing this proposal. :)
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 16. Juli 2016 um 19:09:09, Paul Cantrell (cantrell at pobox.com) schrieb:
>
> Because of all this, I have stopped using extension-level access modifiers
> altogether, instead always specifying access at the member level. I would
> be interested in a proposal to improve the current model — perhaps, for
> example, making “public extension” apply only to a protocol conformance,
> and disabling access modifiers on extensions that don’t have a protocol
> conformance.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160716/7cb5d475/attachment.html>