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

[Matthew Johnson]

> On Mar 24, 2016, at 10:52 AM, Ilya Belenkiy via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> The last sentence was meant to be:
> Private and public have well defined meaning, we should keep the same semantics.
> 
> Still, this is an edge case. Maybe we can separate it into another proposal.

I think any change in semantics should absolutely be a separate proposal.  I support scope-based access semantics.  My opinion about other access semantics would depend on the details of a specific proposal, but I think there is a very high hurdle to clear for introducing any other access semantics.

> 
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:42 AM Ilya Belenkiy via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <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 <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 <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 <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/20160324/14274ab0/attachment.html>