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

[Xiaodi Wu]

Can you elaborate? What understanding of extensions is lacking in this
proposal?
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 22:30 L. Mihalkovic via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>
> Regards
> (From mobile)
>
> On Jul 16, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> Wrong thread ;) If you think it’s ill-prepared than provide some feedback
> instead of just watching and waiting to throw negative feedback during
> review process.
>
> There is a lot done, but it’s not visible to the public thread yet. Will
> be soon (by tomorrow I’d guess).
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> A question i regularly ponder on with modern opensource is how it went so
> fast from stallman writting gcc to today's anything-goes, where there seems
> to be an expectatation that throwing even the worst unfinished piece of
> code in the public should implicitely gag others, and only compel them to
> have to fix it.
> There has always been great as well as ludicrous ideas in the history of
> mankind, and it would be a rare privilege of the opensource movement that
> the latter ought not to be singled out as such, and have them become by
> their mere presence in the public, everyone's responsibility to improve
> upon.
> This proposal was based on a lack of understanding of extensions. My
> understand of the process is that the initial discussion phase is there to
> evaluate an idea leaving, only the promissing ones reach proposal stage.
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 16. Juli 2016 um 21:21:59, L. Mihalkovic (laurent.mihalkovic at gmail.com)
> schrieb:
>
> To me this is reminicent of what is happening with the T.Type / Type<T>
> story, where there seems to be a rush to throw a proposal under the cut-off
> date even if it is ill-prepared, or based on misunderstandinds.
> Regards
> (From mobile)
>
> On Jul 16, 2016, at 7:15 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160717/1065e7f9/attachment.html>