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

[Ilya Belenkiy]

all of these names (public, internal, private, local) have specific meaning
in the context of computer languages. I think that we should use standard
terms and give them the expected meaning. I did not do this originally with
SE-0025 and suggested "scoped" because I thought that "private" could not
be changed. But since it can, we should definitely use it, and give it the
meaning that most people expect.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:57 PM Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> > I honestly still think "public, internal, private, local" is a better
> taxonomy.. It's true that "internal" and "private" aren't automatically
> ordered relative to each other (and maybe not even "local"), but they're
> all adjectives (unlike "module" and "file"), and they're not awkward to
> read or to use in conversation. But both the core team and the list
> disagree, mainly because (a) it aligns 'private' more closely with other
> languages, and (b) if you're not thinking about it, more restrictive is
> better than less. (Both of which I agree are good ideas.)
>
> If we're not married to "private" being the most private access level, I
> think there is a word that implies more privacy than "private": "secret".
> Something that's private is often still shared with trusted people, but
> something that's secret is very carefully protected indeed. "Three may keep
> a secret, if two of them are dead."
>
> So then our four access levels would be:
>
> * public
> * internal
> * private
> * secret
>
> --
> Brent Royal-Gordon
> Architechies
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160326/104d3f40/attachment.html>