[swift-evolution] Pitch: Omit deprecation warnings for same-file references
xiaodi.wu at gmail.com
Fri May 5 18:00:42 CDT 2017
The reason I suggest this is that the most consistent boundary with the
rest of Swift is the module. I don't doubt that some may wish to deprecate
features even for some subset of internal users, but it seems plainly
obvious to me that the more common scenario will be deprecating for public
Since you're presenting scenarios in which it might make sense to have
scope-based or file-based deprecation, then more fine tuning would be the
answer. Without that, I'd argue the default ought to be what I call "public
deprecated." The within-a-module use case should be the later addition.
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 17:15 Tony Allevato <tony.allevato at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree. I'm not opposed outright to that degree of
> configurability but at the same time I wonder if the complexity is
> needed—it feels like it's getting close to the "fine-tuned auditing" that I
> argued against during the discussions about access control.
> It could also be done additively later, if a significant amount of people
> using the feature found that they did need it.
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:09 PM BJ Homer <bjhomer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On May 5, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Why guess as to which of these is appropriate? Couldn't you support the
>> current and all variants of this behavior by allowing access modifiers on
>> > * public deprecated: warning when used from a different module, behaves
>> as though there's a public deprecated pass-through
>> > * internal deprecated: warning when used from a different file
>> > * fileprivate deprecated: warning when used from a different scope
>> > * private deprecated: synonymous with deprecated for backwards
>> compatibility, behaves like it does today
>> > (No need for complicated parsing; SE-25 allows a higher nominal access
>> modifier inside a lower one without warning, so it's fine to allow 'public
>> deprecated' to decorate a private member with no effect.)
>> I’m not opposed to more configurability like that. I worry it makes the
>> feature more complicated and potentially delays the acceptance or
>> implementation of this feature, though. If it’s easy to implement, though,
>> then sure, I like that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution