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

[Ilya Belenkiy]

This is why I'd like private to mean exactly that (no nested class should
get access). Then the meaning is clear: it's as private as it can be :-)

Private and public have well defined meaning. We
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:33 AM Ross O'Brien via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> I agree that 'private' still feels too subjective on its own. It's
> intuitively 'not public'; it's not intuitively the access term for
> 'declaration only'.
>
> I'm not opposed to fileprivate and moduleprivate, if we like those terms.
> I'd just prefer a corresponding scopeprivate or declarationprivate.
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Brandon Knope via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> > How about we continue this trend, and follow other existing Swift
>> keywords that merge two lowercase words (associatedtype, typealias, etc),
>> and use:
>> >
>> >    public
>> >    moduleprivate
>> >    fileprivate
>> >    private
>> >
>> > The advantages, as I see them are:
>> > 1) We keep public and private meaning the “right” and “obvious” things.
>> > 2) The declmodifiers “read” correctly.
>> > 3) The unusual ones (moduleprivate and fileprivate) don’t use the
>> awkward parenthesized keyword approach.
>> > 4) The unusual ones would be “googable”.
>> > 5) Support for named submodules could be “dropped in” by putting the
>> submodule name/path in parens: private(foo.bar.baz) or
>> moduleprivate(foo.bar).  Putting an identifier in the parens is much more
>> natural than putting keywords in parens.
>> >
>> > What do you all think?
>> >
>> > -Chris
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > swift-evolution mailing list
>> > swift-evolution at swift.org
>> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>
>> I'm not sure my wording will be perfect here, but I will try: I still
>> believe that private is implied in "module" and "file" and the problem is
>> in the name of the plain "private" keyword.
>>
>> You may say private is obvious, but when you have moduleprivate and
>> fileprivate, the natural question I ask is "What remaining kind of private
>> is there?" so private's obviousness is muddied for me when next to
>> moduleprivate and fileprivate.
>>
>> I will say I would prefer these keywords to the proposed parameter
>> keywords. I just think:
>>
>> file -> implies file only
>> module -> implies module only
>>
>> where adding private to them only adds noise (I.e. fileprivate and
>> moduleprivate)
>>
>> Brandon
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160324/cf7fd5a5/attachment.html>