[swift-evolution] access control
mailing at xenonium.com
Fri Jan 29 11:08:38 CST 2016
FWIW, I don’t like the ‘local’ term as ‘local variable’ is already widely used for in very specific sens.
While ‘local’ member variable may look like standard local variable as they are supposed to be scoped restricted, the fact that they are available in extension means they are not limited to the class scope and so don’t have the same meaning than existing local variables.
> Le 29 janv. 2016 à 13:04, Carlos Rodríguez Domínguez via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> a écrit :
> I agree with some contributors of this thread in the sense that current “private” modifier is really confusing for newcomers. I think one of the objectives of Swift is to try to attract new developers, and most developers come from Java-based platforms. Therefore, using the same modifier name as in Java, but to refer to different access control semantics, could mislead its use. In my opinion, “private” should have the same semantics as some people are proposing for the new “local” modifier. On the other hand, the new “local” modifier should be a replacement of the current “private” modifier, in order to support a similar approach to “friend classes” in c++ (as it really happens right now with that access control).
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
More information about the swift-evolution