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

[Ondrej Barina]

Hi,
i think the current idea of adding additional specifier is wrong
answer to original question/problem.
The original problem was how to ensure that particular type is the
only one in a given file. (making private effectively scoped private
for that type).

Solution should be to mark the whole structure/file as only for one
type, instead of inventing yet another keyword to be used in all
placed. (Will we have "protected" too in future?).

O.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 8:40 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> Oops, Shawn Ericsson already said it better than me :)
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 15 Mar 2016, at 08:38, David Hart via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> How about:
>
> var whatever: String {
>     private(file) set // default implementation
> }
>
> And
>
> var whatever: String {
>     private set {
>         return "custom"
>     }
> }
>
> On 15 Mar 2016, at 05:12, Russ Bishop via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:51 PM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Patrick Pijnappel via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> Another +1 for James' idea to use private(module), private(file), private:
> - It avoids ambiguity whether internal/private/local is more restrictive and
> replaces it with a single axis, public vs. private.
> - The two longer terms, private(module) and private(file), are the least
> used ones.
> - As mentioned by Joe, it admits clean extension to groupings between file
> and modules in the future (e.g. submodules).
>
> The only question is (as Sean mentioned) how this combines with the syntax
> for setter access level, e.g. the current private(set). Options:
> - Unnamed 2nd argument, giving private(file), private(file, set),
> private(set).
>
>
> We could conceivably reskin private(set) too. A lot of people complain it's
> "weird" as-is, for better or worse.
>
> -Joe
>
>
> That’s because it is weird :)
>
> I always thought the computed form should be:
>
> public var whatever: String {
>     get { … }
>     // override overall visibility to restrict setter
>     private set { … }
> }
>
>
> For this proposal you could do something like:
>
> var private set whatever: String = ""
>
>
>
> Russ
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>