[swift-evolution] access control

[Andrew Bennett]

I like file scoped private, it's way better than C++'s `friend`. I also
often feel that it's unsafe when I've mentally scoped implementation
details to a class or extension, but the implementations are in the same
file.

I would support something like this:
    * `private(module)` alternatively `internal`, the default.
    * `private` alternatively `private(file)`
    * `private(class)`
    * `private(extension)`
    * `public`

Perhaps this could let us deprecate/remove the keyword `internal`, I'm not
sure of many circumstances when you'd actually need to write it.

I also think that `private(module)` is also more intuitively understood
than `internal`.

*My reasoning:*

This seems to come down to:

   - It lowers the cognitive load if you can put related concepts in the
   same file.
   - It lowers the cognitive load if you can reduce the number of things a
   class needs to understand.
   - People like the current system, its simple and it works for them.

"Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the
first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how
will you ever debug it?" - The Elements of Programming Style

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>
> > On Jan 25, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > on Mon Jan 25 2016, Ilya Belenkiy <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why should the compiler enforce this? That’s my design decision.
> >>
> >> It would enforce whatever design decision you make.
> >>
> >>> For the same reason the compiler does not enforce where I have to
> >>> put „private“ (it can make suggestions like many IDEs do and offer
> >>> fix-its, like „this method can be made private as it is not used
> >>> outside the class“ or „this class can be put into its own file as
> >>> its private methods are not used by other components in this file“.
> >>
> >> But once you do put it, it enforces it, and that’s the whole point of
> having access control.
> >>
> >>> No, there is a clear difference: making the type name part of the
> >>> variable name enforces no compiler checks whereas putting something
> >>> into different files does.
> >>
> >> Similarly, putting all of the source code in the same file is
> >> equivalent to no checks.
> >
> > The place where I'm most concerned about this is in playgrounds.  If
> > we're going to use them to teach programming, it should be possible to
> > demonstrate encapsulation there.
> >
>
> Using playgrounds for teaching is a great example of a use case for this.
> Thanks for mentioning it!
>
> I also think the fact that “surrounding scope” is actually the most
> frequent use of `private` members (in code I have surveyed) indicates that
> it is a very reasonable feature request.  Allowing us to declare the actual
> intent aids readability and clarity.
>
> -Matthew
>
> > --
> > -Dave
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > swift-evolution mailing list
> > swift-evolution at swift.org
> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160126/0fd19bf3/attachment.html>