[swift-evolution] SE-0025: Scoped Access Level, next steps
ilya.belenkiy at gmail.com
Fri Mar 25 19:47:07 CDT 2016
no, I still want extensions to be able to hide their implementation details
from anything else (including other extensions of the same type or the
"root" class definition). And I also want to be able to hide stuff in the
root class definition from extensions of the same type. I just don't want
an ability to inject new class in a scope to get access to its
That said, I will not include it in the updated proposal (i'll only update
the names) and will start a new thread after SE-0025. Also, I think that
it's an edge case, and it could be argued either way.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:47 AM Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com>
> On Mar 24, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Ilya Belenkiy via swift-evolution <
> 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 :-)
> In that case, you want a type-based access control mechanism, not a
> scope-based access control mechanism. Your proposal that was provisionally
> accepted is for a scope-based mechanism.
> Chris’s request for bikeshedding on names did not include a request to
> bikeshed on semantics. Any discussion about type-based access control
> should happen in a different thread IMO.
> 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
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution