<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">What do you think of `partial` types like C# but limited to a file?</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Well, imho it would be better than some alternatives, because it might lay the ground for something that is more useful than current same-file extensions, which offer no guarantee that the extension declaring the conformance adds anything to fulfil them (and because of <span style="white-space: pre-wrap; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">retroactive conformance,</span> I don't think this will be changed for extensions).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If private isn't restricted to a single scope anymore, imho all the splitting has no practical benefits at all, and even if we keep the old definition, I doubt that it's worth the increased complexity:</div><div class="">A //MARK-comment is much more useful than an extension, and like many developers, I prefer to keep instance variables grouped in a prominent place (above the methods), so most likely wouldn't use the "special power" of partial.</div></body></html>