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

[Ilya Belenkiy]

"public", "protected", and "private" have a very well defined meaning in
OOP. We shouldn't redefine them without a good reason.

Swift allows extensions, so "private" in its standard form doesn't work
well -- you could just define an extension and get access to anything. The
scope based private seems to be the most natural extension (pun intended
:–)).

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 3:14 AM Cheyo Ximenez <cheyo at masters3d.com> wrote:

> I agree with Ross. Swift already redefined the common access modifiers
> meanings.
> Why not use the word 'protected' to mean 'local'?
>
> public
> internal
> private
> protected // Java got it wrong. :) This is "protected" against extensions.
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2016, at 6:57 PM, Ross O'Brien via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> The specific meaning of 'public' and 'private' in programming languages
> refers to type-based symbol visibility. I'm thinking of C++, C#, Java and
> Objective C; their 'public' is Swift's 'internal'. They have no equivalent
> to Swift's 'public'. Swift has no equivalent to their 'private'.
>
> Possibly my familiarity with other languages isn't broad enough, but this
> is why I haven't understood the idea that Swift's use of 'private' is
> "right" or "obvious". You learn Swift's meanings of these terms by coding
> in Swift, you don't learn these meanings anywhere else first.
>
> To use a hopefully recognised example: an American who wants 'chips' wants
> what a Brit calls crisps; a Brit who wants chips wants what an American
> calls french fries. Which meaning of 'chips' is more intuitive? Answer: the
> one you grew up with.
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>> > all of these names (public, internal, private, local) have specific
>> meaning in the context of computer languages.
>>
>> Yes, `local` has a meaning, but that meaning is generally *not* that it's
>> an access level. It usually has something to do with declaring variables
>> inside a function.
>>
>> For instance, Perl uses it to back up and restore a global variable. ML
>> uses it to create a scope (roughly). Lua and Julia use it to declare
>> lexical variables which are visible in enclosed scopes, which SE-0025's new
>> access level is specifically *not* supposed to allow.
>>
>> I don't know of any language where `local` is used as an access level. If
>> you're aware of an analogous use in another language, I'd be interested to
>> see it. But the examples I've found if anything *undermine* the suggestion
>> that `local` would be a good keyword choice.
>>
>> --
>> Brent Royal-Gordon
>> Architechies
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160328/16d42a6b/attachment.html>