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

[Ilya Belenkiy]

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
implementation details.

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>
wrote:

> 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
>>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160326/07150849/attachment.html>