[swift-evolution] continuations - "extensions on steroids" idea
mike.kluev at gmail.com
Thu Nov 2 07:17:50 CDT 2017
to sum up. so far the feedback on this proposal was:
1) generally in favour (e.g. to have ability of adding variables and
accessing privates at all)
2) the name "continuation" is used for something else
3) why not to use partials as they are in c#
4) having explicit names for continuations is unwanted because naming is
5) the ledger list is unnecessary as anyone on the same module will be able
to change it anyway - false feel of protection.
here are my thoughts on it.
1) "generally in favour (e.g. to have ability of adding variables and
accessing privates at all)"
-- great! thank you.
2) "the name "continuation" is used for something else"
-- thought the same. let it be "part" instead of continuation
3) "why not to use partials as they are in c#"
-- my belief here is that just because i made my type partial (for my own
reasons, e.g. as a result of splitting a single-file class into a
multi-file) it does not necessarily mean I want other developers of my team
(on the same module) to add continuations / parts to my class. in other
words, while there are the module boundaries (the building walls) i still
want to see some partitions between the rooms of that building to have some
4) "having explicit names for continuations is unwanted because naming is
-- every time I am adding extension now I want to label it somehow to
indicate it's purpose. if that extensions adds a protocol conformance (e.g.
"extension ViewController: UITableViewDataSource") the problem is not as
critical as the protocol (or the list of protocols) name itself can serve
the purpose of such an indication. if there is no such a protocol
conformance however i tend to add a "MARK: ThePurpose" or a comment
("extension ViewController /* ThePurpose */) and as the comments are not
checked and get out of sync every time i do this i wish there was a a more
explicit extension label in the language for this purpose. maybe that's
5) "the ledger list is unnecessary as anyone on the same module will be
able to change it anyway - false feel of protection."
-- to this i can give the same response as in (3). here is another example
that hopefully will clarify my point: we shall not really say that
"private" in swift is useless and "internal" shall be used instead of it
just because anyone in the same module can bypass it anyway: go to your
class and change the source from "private" to "internal" for their own
benefits, so why bother with private / fileprivate to begin with. so is
true in regards to the ledger: yes, it is true that anyone on the team
working on the same module has a physical ability to go to my class (the
class who's sole maintainer and "owner" is myself) and mess around it,
changing it's ledger along the way, or making it partial as in (3) or
changing it's privates to internal, or adding variables, etc. it's just
they shouldn't, at least not talking to me first. they won't be "behaving
properly" if they do.
some additional thoughts. ledger works similar to the c++ class definition
itself, which lists all the members of the class, just on a less granular
scope: while in C++ you have to go there every time you want to add, say, a
private method, with parts you go change the ledger very infrequently, to
add a group or functionalities. another tangentially similar feature of C++
is "friends". if you class have, say, 10 different extensions each
implementing a certain feature and you converted them to "parts" the ledger
list will contain 10 entries naming those features explicitly.
ps. by now i figured that discussing protection levels in swift is akin to
having a wonderful morning walk across a mine field
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution