[swift-evolution] SE-0025: Scoped Access Level, next steps

[Sean Heber]

How would you handle translating the existing private(set) and the like with this syntax? It seems like it could get confusing and perhaps end up in a situation where you have something like private(file, set) but then you have to constantly remember which order the parameters are in.

l8r
Sean


> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Ilya Belenkiy via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> I really like James's idea:
> 
> private                 symbol visible within the current declaration (class, extension, etc).
> private(module) symbol visible within the current module.
> private(file)           symbol visible within the current file.
> 
> this is very precise and crystal clear. All other already suggested names have room for interpretation.  These are obvious at a glance.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:49 PM James Berry via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 14, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> > Per Doug’s email, the core team agrees we should make a change here, but would like some bikeshedding to happen on the replacement name for private.
> >
> > To summarize the place we’d like to end up:
> >
> > - “public” -> symbol visible outside the current module.
> > - “internal” -> symbol visible within the current module.
> > - unknown -> symbol visible within the current file.
> > - “private” -> symbol visible within the current declaration (class, extension, etc).
> >
> > The rationale here is that this aligns Swift with common art seen in other languages, and that many people using private today don’t *want* visibility out of their current declaration.  It also encourages “extension oriented programming”, at least it will when some of the other restrictions on extensions are lifted.  We discussed dropping the third one entirely, but think it *is* a useful and important level of access control, and when/if we ever get the ability to write unit tests inside of the file that defines the functionality, they will be a nicer solution to @testable.
> >
> > The thing we need to know is what the spelling should be for the third one.  Off hand, perhaps:
> >
> > fileprivate
> > private(file)
> > internal(file)
> > fileaccessible
> > etc
> >
> > Some other thoughts on the choice:
> > - this will be a declaration modifier, so it will not “burn” a keyword.
> > - if will be a uniquely Swift thing, so there is virtue in it being a googlable keyword.
> >
> > Thoughts appreciated.
> 
> 
> I like fileprivate, if that’s the only change. On the other hand, if we want to consider a broader change, what about:
> 
>         private                 symbol visible within the current declaration (class, extension, etc).
>         private(module) symbol visible within the current module.
>         private(file)           symbol visible within the current file.
> 
> James
> _______________________________________________
> 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