Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   jesse squires (jsq@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 06:13:45 JST jesse squires

   • Package

   Instead of a new access modifier, I would have preferred:

   “@Package import MyModule”

   which would work similarly to “@testable import”

   https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/main/proposals/0386-package-access-modifier.md

   • Embed this notice
     NeoNacho (neonacho@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 06:13:45 JST NeoNacho

     in reply to

     @jsq so you would have wanted to be able to import internal API of other modules?

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 06:13:45 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • NeoNacho

     @NeoNacho @jsq
     Lukewarm take: this is a good addition; it’s fileprivate that was the mistake

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 09:33:52 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • NeoNacho

     @jsq @NeoNacho
     The mailing list hashed over this exact argument at length when `open` was under discussion, and IIRC the argument against it was that designing for inheritance by third parties is so wildly fraught and so easily breaks encapsulation (all true) that it should not be the de facto default.

   • Embed this notice
     NeoNacho (neonacho@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 09:33:53 JST NeoNacho

     in reply to

     @jsq sure but what’s the API you get? @testable gives you access to anything that’s internal, I think we felt that was too open.

   • Embed this notice
     jesse squires (jsq@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 09:33:53 JST jesse squires

     in reply to

     • NeoNacho

     @NeoNacho I was going to say make things private that you don’t want visible. But I can see how that might not always work.

     Still, I feel like the extra access modifiers are just compensating for edge cases in what’s ultimately a developer’s shitty design. Like, we don’t need `open` when we have `public final`

   • Embed this notice
     jesse squires (jsq@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 09:33:55 JST jesse squires

     in reply to

     • NeoNacho

     @NeoNacho no, this would have to be somehow “magically restricted” for usage only in package contexts, just like how you can’t do @testable outside of a testing target

   • Embed this notice
     Paul Cantrell (inthehands@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 12:28:53 JST Paul Cantrell

     in reply to

     • NeoNacho

     @jsq @NeoNacho
     Yes, my position too. Hindsight!

   • Embed this notice
     jesse squires (jsq@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 11-May-2023 12:28:54 JST jesse squires

     in reply to

     • Paul Cantrell
     • NeoNacho

     @inthehands @NeoNacho yeah and I agree.

     My issue is that both “final” and “open” exist and now “public” has 2 meanings depending on context.

     I think classes should have just been final by default, obviating the need for the keyword. Then you opt-in to subclassing with “open”