> On 7 Sep 2016, at 11:42, Quincey Morris
> wrote:
>
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 21:31 , Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>>
>> My Swift book (2.2) has no mention of “private” (Swift 3 beta has).
>
> It’s in the 2.2 book under “Language Guide” section “Access Control”
You are right. I used Books.app on
>
> My Swift book (2.2) has no mention of “private” (Swift 3 beta has).
> But even assuming I had Swift 3, I do not quite understand how this should be
> done (I may be a bit dense).
Page 508 in the Swift 2.2 book I just downloaded from iBooks.
“Getters and Setters
Getters and setters for const
On Sep 6, 2016, at 21:31 , Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
> My Swift book (2.2) has no mention of “private” (Swift 3 beta has).
It’s in the 2.2 book under “Language Guide” section “Access Control"
> But even assuming I had Swift 3, I do not quite understand how this should be
> done (I may be a
> On 7 Sep 2016, at 11:28, Quincey Morris
> wrote:
>
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 21:14 , Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>>
>> But I cannot get this to work.
>
> Meaning … ?? A compiler error? What does the source code look like, of the
> protocol with the class func in it? What is the error message?
> On 7 Sep 2016, at 10:49, Quincey Morris
> wrote:
>
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 17:17 , Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>>
>> But what to do about localConstantDependingOnSuper?
[…]
> Anyway, this particular example is fairly easily solved by declaring
> “localConstantDependingOnSuper” as ‘private(set)
On Sep 6, 2016, at 21:14 , Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
> But I cannot get this to work.
Meaning … ?? A compiler error? What does the source code look like, of the
protocol with the class func in it? What is the error message?
> NewSuper uses this classFunction like:
> func otherFunction( arg:
> On 7 Sep 2016, at 10:49, Quincey Morris
> wrote:
>
>> Another problem:
>> Super → SubA and SubB.
>> SubA → SubA1 and SubA2
>> SubB → SubB1 and SubB2
>>
>> Both SubA1 and SubB1 have identical functions. As have SubA2 and SubB2.
>> Multiple inheritance would be a solution here; but neither Ob
On Sep 6, 2016, at 17:17 , Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
> But what to do about localConstantDependingOnSuper?
Now you’re moving the goal posts. :) I said:
> assuming the places of definition aren’t more complicated than in your code
and you’re making it more complicated. Anyway, this particula
> On Sep 6, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2016, at 13:29, Quincey Morris
>> wrote:
>>
>> More globally, this sort of thing is not terribly idiomatic for Swift,
>> because you’re trying to hide things that could get exposed other ways, for
>> example, by “hostile
> On 5 Sep 2016, at 13:29, Quincey Morris
> wrote:
>
> On Sep 4, 2016, at 22:50 , Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
> If you can’t do that, you can do it with a closure, assuming the places of
> definition aren’t more complicated than in your code. Something like this:
>
>> class SuperClass
>> {
On Sep 4, 2016, at 22:50 , Gerriet M. Denkmann wrote:
>
> I really want “onlyKnownBySubclass” to be a constant (i.e. let instead of var)
There’s an easy way if you can declare both classes in the same file. Then, you
can just declare the instance variable like this:
> private(set) var on
11 matches
Mail list logo
