[swift-evolution] access control proposal
marc at knaup.koeln
Mon Dec 14 11:22:36 CST 2015
What about "more private" or "really private"? :)
I also thought about "local" but it's also not obvious what exactly that
Maybe "my"? my var xyz = …
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:17 PM, David Owens II via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 8:58 AM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com>
> I agree that you can concoct arbitrarily complex scenarios and a line must
> be drawn somewhere. IMO the best place to draw the line is when you start
> considering something that is not super straightforward to explain and is
> not a natural extension of the obviously necessary access modifiers.
> IMO ‘scope’ passes this test and all of the complex counter-examples do
> not. It is the logical conclusion of a simple narrowing of visibility from
> “everyone” to “module” to “file” to “scope”. It is simple to explain and
> understand. Those who don’t like it don’t need to use it. Anything more
> complex is unlikely to pass such a test.
> I think the simplest counter-example is your own example for extensions.
> Each extensions will need access to different internals of the the type
> it’s applied to. So when it comes time to add that extension, you’ll be
> forced to promote the access control from “local” to “private”.
> Another straight-forward one is a subclass. Since “local” would be “scope”
> based, a subclass would also knot have access to those members defined as
> local in the super class, so they’d have to be promoted to private and thus
> available to all code within the file.
> I think “local” fits this definition:
> IMO the best place to draw the line is when you start considering
> something that is not super straightforward to explain and is not a natural
> extension of the obviously necessary access modifiers.
> It’s not an obviously necessary modifier as it’s usage is extremely
> limited and requires to be bounced up a level is a lot of design
> considerations, such as extensions and subclasses. There are certainly
> times where “local” could be used, but my opinion is that it’s not worth
> complexity for the limited value that it actually brings to the table.
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution