<div dir="ltr">+1 for me for "in-module" as a stop-gap, since I imagine it would be the quickest, and least disruptive, way to make this happen. <div><br></div><div>I would add the caveat that if we do so, I really hope we commit to making stored properties available *everywhere* later. </div><div><br></div><div>Even though it's more often than not "in-module" where I need this, the fewer "exceptions to the rule" we have in Swift the better. It gets tricky trying to plan things out when one has to juggle too many features that work in one context, but not another. </div><div><br></div><div>So +1 with the hope that it doesn't stay "in-module" till the end of time.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Paul Cantrell via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
> On Oct 9, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Let extensions introduce stored properties, but only in the same module as the type’s definition. Then, the compiler can just take any extensions into consideration when it’s determining the size of the type, just as if the properties had been declared in the type. Declaring stored properties on an extension outside of the type’s module results in a compiler error, exactly as today. This would, without any performance drawbacks, solve one of the big problems that people are hoping to solve via stored properties in extensions—the ability to organize members by protocol conformance.<br>
<br>
Yes please! A big strong +1 to this from me. I can think of several specific chunks of problem code that this would clean up immensely.<br>
<br>
Contra Karl in another message, it’s _in-module_ stored property extensions that I want most frequently. By far.<br>
<br>
It seems to me that Charles’s idea could be introduced as its own proposal. If out-of-module stored property extensions do eventually become feasible, then Charles’s proposal is a good stepping stone. If they never do, then his proposal has done no harm.<br>
<br>
I realize this probably falls into the post-ABI stability bucket, but I’d love to help write/support the proposal when its time comes.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/swift-<wbr>evolution</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>