+1 from me. While I understand that this is convenient for some, I think that the access modifier being separate from each specific declaration/definition leads to issues stemming from the implicit attributes.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > I tried to tackle the ability to write extensions where everyone would be > forced to write access modifier on member level. That’s what I had in my > mind all the time. But the respond on this was, as you can see purely > negative. :D > > Making all extensions public when there is protocol conformance makes no > sense, because you could extend your type with an internal protocol, or the > extended type might be not public. > > Anyways, I’m withdrawing this proposal. :) > > > > -- > Adrian Zubarev > Sent with Airmail > > Am 16. Juli 2016 um 19:09:09, Paul Cantrell ([email protected]) schrieb: > > Because of all this, I have stopped using extension-level access modifiers > altogether, instead always specifying access at the member level. I would > be interested in a proposal to improve the current model — perhaps, for > example, making “public extension” apply only to a protocol conformance, > and disabling access modifiers on extensions that don’t have a protocol > conformance. > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
