[swift-evolution] [Pitch] consistent public access modifiers

[Brent Royal-Gordon]

> On Feb 13, 2017, at 8:14 AM, Adrian Zubarev <adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com> wrote:
> 
> Is that assumption correct?
> 
> // Module A
> public protocol SQLiteValue {
>     init(statement: SQLiteStatement, columnAt index: Int) throws
>     func bind(to statement: SQLiteStatement, at index: Int) throws
> }
> 
> // Module B
> protocol SQLiteLoggable : SQLiteValue {
>     var logDescription: String { get }
> }
> 
> I could not follow your example there. If SQLiteLoggable is from module B than this should be an error in my opinion. Otherwise open would have less meaning on protocols, because you always could create an empty protocol that has a super public protocol which you’re not allowed to conform to in module B. This would be a silly workaround to being able to conform to it SQLiteValue indirectly without any further requirement like in SQLiteValueConvertible.

The idea is that a type in Module B could not conform to `SQLiteLoggable` without also having a valid conformance to `SQLiteValue`—either by taking a type Module A conforms to `SQLValue` and retroactively conforming it to `SQLiteLoggable`, or by adding a conformance to `SQLiteConvertible` in Module B. So this would not be allow you to work around `SQLiteValue`'s non-open-ness.

-- 
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies