Regards (From mobile) > On Jul 16, 2016, at 9:35 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wrong thread ;) If you think it’s ill-prepared than provide some feedback > instead of just watching and waiting to throw negative feedback during review > process. > > There is a lot done, but it’s not visible to the public thread yet. Will be > soon (by tomorrow I’d guess). > > Thanks. >
A question i regularly ponder on with modern opensource is how it went so fast from stallman writting gcc to today's anything-goes, where there seems to be an expectatation that throwing even the worst unfinished piece of code in the public should implicitely gag others, and only compel them to have to fix it. There has always been great as well as ludicrous ideas in the history of mankind, and it would be a rare privilege of the opensource movement that the latter ought not to be singled out as such, and have them become by their mere presence in the public, everyone's responsibility to improve upon. This proposal was based on a lack of understanding of extensions. My understand of the process is that the initial discussion phase is there to evaluate an idea leaving, only the promissing ones reach proposal stage. > > > -- > Adrian Zubarev > Sent with Airmail > > Am 16. Juli 2016 um 21:21:59, L. Mihalkovic ([email protected]) > schrieb: > >> To me this is reminicent of what is happening with the T.Type / Type<T> >> story, where there seems to be a rush to throw a proposal under the cut-off >> date even if it is ill-prepared, or based on misunderstandinds. >> Regards >> (From mobile) >> >> On Jul 16, 2016, at 7:15 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
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
