On 30 October 2017 at 07:30, Adam Kemp <[email protected]> wrote: > > No. There are two reasonable options: > > 1. Make it public. If it’s needed outside the module then this is an > accurate description of its access level. > > 2. Make it internal and accept that any code in the same module can access > it. Again, that is effectively what your proposed scope allows anyway so > internal is an accurate description of its actual access level. Call it > what it is. > > Adam, i fail to see why you say "No" to "one module per class approach" if the goal is to make the individual multi-file classes as isolated as possible (i.e. not see each other "internal" stuff). which (this goal) is considered the "way to go" approach in other languages and the "default" behaviour.
this: SingleFileClass1.swift // with bunch of "privates" inside SingleFileClass2.swift // with bunch of "privates" inside SingleFileClass3.swift // with bunch of "privates" inside is equivalent to this: Module solely for Class1 Class1.swift // with bunch of "internals inside Class1+Extension.swift // with bunch of "internals" inside Module solely for Class2 Class2.swift // with bunch of "internals" inside Class2+Extension.swift // with bunch of "internals" inside Module solely for Class3 Class3.swift // with bunch of "internals" inside Class3+Extension.swift // with bunch of "internals" inside still "no" ? i mean, it's fine (although a bit odd) that a mere change from a single-file to a multi-file class leads to such drastic consequences. different to what i saw before. but I can adapt of course. Either way the answer is basically the same: don’t obfuscate the effective > access level and pretend you’re being strict when you’re really not. It’s > like putting a lock on the door with the key hanging from the doorknob. You > may as well just keep it unlocked. > > nice analogy :-) Mike
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
