-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 311
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove @_implementationOnly
annotations
#616
Remove @_implementationOnly
annotations
#616
Conversation
@swift-ci please test |
5736e59
to
6432e19
Compare
@swift-ci please test |
@natecook1000 can you review? (sorry I can't add you as a reviewer here) |
Is there a reason to use private instead of internal? Additionally could we use an upcoming feature flag instead of conditional compilation? |
I don't have a pref on private vs internal for this case, was just trying to mirror similarly to what was here before. But I guess if private works I'd think we should prefer that, wdyt? Based on swiftlang/swift-syntax#2429 (comment) you cannot use that flag instead |
I wasn't sure if there was a specific reason to prefer private other than minimally scoped imports. Given the context of the swift-syntax comment, this changes lgtm, but I'll wait for Nate to do the final approval |
These annotations produce warnings when compiling swift-syntax without library evolution using Swift ≥5.10. Replace them by `private import` when compiling using Swift ≥5.11. Mirrors swiftlang/swift-syntax#2429
6432e19
to
51e348b
Compare
@swift-ci please test |
These annotations produce warnings when compiling swift-syntax without library evolution using Swift ≥5.10.
Replace them by
private import
when compiling using Swift ≥5.11.Mirrors swiftlang/swift-syntax#2429
Checklist