[swift-evolution] Pitch: Cross-module inlining and specialization
nevin.brackettrozinsky at gmail.com
Mon Oct 2 16:36:54 CDT 2017
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Slava Pestov <spestov at apple.com> wrote:
> Thanks for taking a look!
> > On Oct 2, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky <
> nevin.brackettrozinsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 3. Even though @inlinable will have no effect on declarations which are
> not public, we should still allow it to be placed there. That way when the
> access level is later changed to be public, the attribute is already where
> it should be. This is similar to why we permit, eg., members of an internal
> type to be declared public, which was discussed and decided previously on
> Swift Evolution.
> This is an interesting point. Do you think the attribute should be
> completely ignored, or should the restrictions on references to non-public
> things, etc still be enforced?
Hmm, good question!
I rather like the idea Greg Parker put forth, where non-public @inlinable
items can be used by public @inlinable ones, which implies that the
restrictions should indeed still apply—something @inlinable can only
reference public or @inlinable things.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution