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

[Haravikk]

I think in the referenced example the new private would mean “class and extensions”, with file being the new private, which I think is confusing.

My preference would be:

public
module (currently internal)
protected (class and extensions)
private 

protected is widely used to mean this in other languages and fits well semantically between public and private. The other alternative could be just to re-use the class and struct keys; i.e- a “class” accessible property means the class, its descendants and its extensions know about it, with struct being the same for structs (in which case it’s just extensions, so the distinction might be nice for clarity). Alternatively we could re-use the extension keyword, to indicate that the property/method is available to extensions (including sub-classes).

> On 15 Mar 2016, at 23:40, James Campbell via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> Just wondering, wouldn't private be enougth for a class level declaration ?
> 
> Not sure why we need a file baed one.
> 
> ___________________________________
> 
> James⎥Head of Trolls
> 
> james at supmenow.com <mailto:james at supmenow.com>⎥supmenow.com <http://supmenow.com/>
> Sup
> 
> Runway East
> 
> 
> 10 Finsbury Square
> 
> London
> 
> 
> EC2A 1AF 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto: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.
> 
> -Chris
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <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/20160315/ad2b389e/attachment.html>