<div dir="ltr">Right now @_versioned is only for internal declarations. We should have something similar for private and fileprivate declarations. I think most people use those modifiers for code organization, not binary resilience, so we would do well to make the two intents separate and explicit.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Xiaodi Wu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" target="_blank">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><div dir="auto">On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 17:41 Taylor Swift <<a href="mailto:kelvin13ma@gmail.com" target="_blank">kelvin13ma@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>I think we should try to separate visibility from access control. In other words, the compiler should be able to see more than the user. I want to be able to write private and internal code that cannot be called explicitly in source, but can still be inlined by the compiler. Right now people are doing this with underscored methods and variable names but I don’t think that’s a good convention to use. We should have something at the language level that enforces that something shouldn’t be referenced by name outside of its scope, but is public for all compilation and ABI purposes. Maybe an attribute like @visible or a new keyword or something.</div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div></span><div dir="auto">Right, that’s @_versioned, essentially.</div><span class=""><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <span><<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">This is unduly restrictive; @_versioned (despite being the wrong spelling) is what we want here. To be callable from an inlinable function, internal things need only be visible in terms of public ABI, not necessarily inlinable, just as public things need only be public and not necessarily inlinable.<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="m_-7952634603822794887m_7285399758680272494h5"><div>On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 16:37 Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br></div></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="m_-7952634603822794887m_7285399758680272494h5"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Slava Pestov <span><<a href="mailto:spestov@apple.com" target="_blank">spestov@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks for taking a look!<br>
<span><br>
> On Oct 2, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky <<a href="mailto:nevin.brackettrozinsky@gmail.com" target="_blank">nevin.brackettrozinsky@gmail.<wbr>com</a>> wrote:</span><span><br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
</span>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?<br></blockquote></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><div><br></div><div> Hmm, good question!</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Nevin</div></div></div></div></div></div><span>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">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>
</span></blockquote></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>