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

[Ilya Belenkiy]

lexical scope is the other way around: "inner" can see "outer". For example:

func f() {
  let outer = 0
 // f cannot use inner
   func g() {
       let inner = 1
       // g can use outer
   }
}

It would work the same way for the access level. That said, I'd rather not
include this in the proposal. The only change that the core team requested
was the name changes. I personally would prefer a completely private
version where you cannot inject a class into a scope to get access to the
scope internals, but it's an edge case that could be argued either way, and
I don't want to start another lengthy discussion. We already had quite a
few.

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:17 PM Matthew Judge <matthew.judge at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I know it was suggested that it be the subject of a different thread, but
> it might be good to clarify how the new private is going to work (or at
> least what is currently envisioned).
>
> My understanding is that the new private would be:
> - visible only to the immediately enclosing scope
> - including the scope of a inner nested scope
> - not including the scope of an outer nested scope
> - not visible to an extension
>
> Said in code (all in the same file):
> ----------
> class Outer { // Outer visible to module
>     private var a: Int // visible to Outer, Inner1, & Inner2
>
>     class Inner1 { // Inner1 visible to module
>         private var b: Int // visible to Inner1 only
>     }
>     private class Inner2 { // visible to Outer & Inner(s)
>         var c: Int // visible to Outer & Inner(s)
>     }
> }
>
> extension Outer { // visible to module
>     // 'a', 'b', and 'Inner2' NOT visible
> }
> ----------
> If this is the intended meaning of private, then fileprivate seems to be
> the same as private (private to the enclosing scope... which happens to be
> the file).
>
> Something declared "private" at the top level of a file is fileprivate.
> There would still need to be a way to reference scopes other than the
> immediate one (especially since there is no way to say "private" and mean
> moduleprivate), though I think it would strengthen the argument for
> something along the lines of "private(file)", since it would even further
> reduce the cases where you are spelling something more than just "private"
>
>
> On Mar 27, 2016, at 17:31, Haravikk via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Mar 2016, at 19:34, Jose Cheyo Jimenez via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> Public
> External (default)
> Internal
> Private
>
>
> I still feel like these are still too vague; I’m not sure I like the use
> of external, as public to me is external since it exports outside of the
> module, whereas what you’re proposing is in fact just limited to the module
> itself. I dislike the current internal keyword too, but at least it reads
> as “internal to this module", this is why the more specific terms are
> better like:
>
> public as-is, item is public/exported outside of module
> private(module) or private current internal, item is private to this
> module, would be the default
> private(file) current private, item is private to this file
> private(scope) new visibility type, item is private to the current scope
>
> Assuming I’m understanding the restriction properly this time =)
>
> It’s also the easiest method if we do add another visibility later for
> sub-classes such as private(type), as it doesn’t even require a new keyword.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> 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/20160328/890bb17c/attachment.html>