> On Feb 20, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Jaden Geller <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
> I think we might have miscommunicated. It is intended that outermost module
> is implicit; no `module` declaration is required to wrap every file. We tried
> to show this in the first code snippet.
>
> What do you mean “covering only part of a file”?
I am assuming that the ModuleName { … } only affects things within the
brackets. Thus it is possible for only part of a file to be within a module.
What are the benefits of allowing this, and are they worth the added complexity?
Thanks,
Jon
> Cheers,
> Jaden Geller
>
>> On Feb 20, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> What is the rational for having modules covering only part of a file?
>> Wouldn’t it be less clutter to have an annotation which worked for the whole
>> file. At the very least it would be nice to have an option to spell it in a
>> way that applies to the whole file. Otherwise, everything will be indented
>> another level.
>>
>> I would honestly love to see something which just maps modules to
>> folders/groups for simplicity sake.
>>
>> I haven’t thought about it too much yet, so I could easily be missing
>> something obvious...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jon
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
