Hi @Dan, hi @Sara. Thanks for giving us your feedback on this.
> I think that although the RFC discussion can go ahead without a patch,
> it would be better to have a patch before it went to vote, as there
> seem to be quite a few hidden details that might not be able to be
> made to work.
I want
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 4:51 AM Mohammad Amin Chitgarha <
machitgar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Currently, it's possible that, inside a trait's function, use the parent
> method of a class using the trait. This way, not only it's implicitly
> supposed the trait is used in a class having a paren
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022, at 3:00 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
>> We are therefore going to proceed with `public private(set)`, the same
> syntax as Swift and the current RFC text use.
>
> It seems my previous email went to /dev/null.
>
> This is incomprehensible.
>
> Go with public(get) private(set) plea
Hi.
Currently, it's possible that, inside a trait's function, use the parent method
of a class using the trait. This way, not only it's implicitly supposed the
trait is used in a class having a parent, but also the parent class has such a
method. It doesn't seem to be a good practice, as stated
> We are therefore going to proceed with `public private(set)`, the same
syntax as Swift and the current RFC text use.
It seems my previous email went to /dev/null.
This is incomprehensible.
Go with public(get) private(set) please.
"public private" makes no sense.
