> On Oct 2, 2017, at 11:27 PM, Slava Pestov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> 1) Why not another level of access control? There is a reasonable argument
>> that what you’re doing is making something “more public than public” or that
>> you’re making the “body also public”. I’m not strongly in favor of this
>> design approach, but if you agree, the doc should explain why you’re not in
>> favor of it.
>
> Oh, I forgot to address this point. I’m against this because even though this
> proposal says inlinable requires public, it is really orthogonal to public,
> because eventually we will have something like the current @_versioned
> attribute, where internal (or even private, as some have suggested) functions
> can be “public ABI”. For example,
I’m also against it, because it should theoretically be orthogonal to
open/public. While we could define “fragile” as being “more permissive than
open and public”, that is weird and access control is already too complicated.
:-)
-Chris
>
> @_versioned func myInternalDetails() {
> // …
> }
>
> @inlinable
> public func myPublicFunction() {
> myInternalDetails() // I can reference this from an inlinable function, but
> users can’t call it directly
> }
>
> Slava
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
