[Proposal] Revising access modifiers on extensions

Evolution Discussion
21

How do private or fileprivate help extensions in general?

Is really laziness a strong argument over consistency and clarity?

What does ‘lazy’ have to do with anything in this proposal? Im confused.

I know that your desire is to make it consistent and thus clear but the reality is that
this proposal ( and `group` ) would just make the language complex and really confusing.

···

On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

As for your example I’d have a pretty good solution (I can’t say this will be accepted, but the idea is great, at least I think that way. I’d propose for that feature after Swift 3 drops):

// Use correct consistent access control
fileprivate extension Int {
     
    // every member of a nameless group would be `fileprivate`
    fileprivate group {
     
       func double() -> Int {
           return self*2
       }
        
       func member1() {}
       func member2() {}
       func member3() {}
       func member4() {}
    }
}
A group could do way more than just in this example: https://gist.github.com/DevAndArtist/c74f706febf93452999881335f6ca1f9
We’d move the behavior out into its own more powerful feature.

--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 28. Juni 2016 um 03:14:08, Jose Cheyo Jimenez (cheyo@masters3d.com <mailto:cheyo@masters3d.com>) schrieb:

I would be against removing access modifiers on extensions. I actually don't see anything wrong with the way extensions work with modifiers right now. Consistency for consistency's sake is never a good measurement if it is not addressing a pain point.

When ever I extend a swift standard type, I always make it "fileprivate" because I don't want to pollute autocomplete for that type.

fileprivate extension Int {
   func double() -> Int {
       return self*2
   }
}

My understanding is that private / fileprivate was renamed/introduced to help with extensions. I don't think extensions need anymore complexities. I would hardly ever use private in swift 3 for example (when it gets implemented.)

_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

22

Laziness of typing out fileprivate on all extension members.

group is exactly what access modifier do right now on extensions.

Current access control on extensions is a mix of the access control from classes (enums and struct) and the access control from protocols (which is like groups will work). But the result isn’t great when it comes to conformances or default implementations. I already showed a few examples where it gets weird.

My opinion the the exact opposite, because I think it won’t be complex that way. People were already asking for something similar for declarations to group variables by an access modifier and reduce the boiler plate. An extra group scope won’t hurt you and it signals in a nice design where all group members will have the exact same access modifier.

···

--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 28. Juni 2016 um 22:55:23, Jose Cheyo Jimenez (cheyo@masters3d.com) schrieb:

What does ‘lazy’ have to do with anything in this proposal? Im confused.

I know that your desire is to make it consistent and thus clear but the reality is that
this proposal ( and `group` ) would just make the language complex and really confusing.