[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [REVIEW] SE-0193 - Cross-module inlining and specialization

[Chris Lattner]

> On Dec 23, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> I'm quite sure that the reason you inverted your "abiPublic" example is because of the same issue. Intuitively, you would want to mark something as "available" in version N and then maybe some special kind of "available" in version N+1 (which @available(inlinable) would be). But @available(linkerSymbol), as you spell it, suffers from a similar problem to that of @available(unavailable): it's _not_ a special kind of API availability, but rather indicates that something is less-than-available. That is, you would use it to indicate that something is available as ABI but not as API. In that sense, it extends the "mess" we have with @available(unavailable).
>> 
>> I don’t think it’s quite the same thing as @available(unavailable). An @available(abiPublic) symbol would still be declared to have internal visibility, so in this case the @available attribute makes it strictly more visible than it would be without. We’re not going to spell it as ‘@available(abiPublic) public’, which indeed would be confusing because the symbol is not actually public at the source level.
> 
> Right.  The bug here is with @available(unavailable).  Its design is clearly broken and oxymoronic.  That doesn’t make all of @available broken.

Random thought: I think this all would make more sense if we rename @available -> @availability and unavailable -> removed.

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20171228/6d849c67/attachment.html>