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

[David Waite]

I believe we will need another non-type access level if frameworks are ever divided into submodules.

-DW

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 7:13 AM, Ilya Belenkiy via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> I am not sure if we will ever get another access level. If we do, great, but given how long this discussion has been already, I am not counting on it :-)
> 
> Most likely, if we get more, it will be possible to describe it with a simple word, or a combination of words or with some common abbreviations, so I am not worried about extensibility. I think that the names in the proposal are very consistent with Swift as it is today and will serve us well. They are also completely unambiguous and don't depend on the reading context, so if we come up with other ways to label access levels, it should still be possible to either use these names for backward compatibility or migrate them automatically to new names without any difference in semantics.
> 
> We also needed to pick something. I waited for about a week to get everybody's vote, and I think that I picked a compromise that we can all be at least ok with. (I also originally wanted short single word names). I think we should close the naming thread at this point.
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:26 AM Matthew Judge <matthew.judge at gmail.com <mailto:matthew.judge at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mar 29, 2016, at 20:47, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> 
> >> If Scala style access modifiers were adopted for Swift then a private(file) modifier would also be necessary to give the current private functionality.
> >
> > I could imagine having these options:
> >
> >    public                            // visible to all everyone
> >    private(scope-name, scope-name, …)    // visible to specified scopes (plus current scope)
> >    private                            // visible only to current scope
> >
> 
> Allowing multiple "scope-name"s is a lot of flexibility and power, but not sure it's useful/worthwhile.
> 
>  For the current discussion, I would think "scope-name" should be limited to an enclosing scope only.  So you can say "private(Outer)" from an Inner class or "private(#file)" from within a class, but not "private(ClassA)" from within ClassB.
> 
> (This would also solve the ambiguity of how to reference the main ClassA or a specific extension to ClassA... "private(ClassA)" can only refer to whichever scope of ClassA you are currently in.)
> 
> > scope-name could perhaps be:
> >
> > * A type name (or Self, which would mimic C++-style private, or perhaps even C++-style protected depending on how we treat inheritance)
> 
> But, this is getting into type-based access which is beyond the scope of SE-0025 right?
> 
> > * A module name (or #module for the current module)
> > * A file name string (or #file for the current file)
> >
> > And then the default would simply be `private(#module)`.
> >
> > Alternatively, the parameterized level could be given a different name, like `internal` or `shared`. If that were the case, then `#module` might simply be the default.
> >
> > --
> > Brent Royal-Gordon
> > Architechies
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > swift-evolution mailing list
> > swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <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/20160330/f36c544b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160330/f36c544b/attachment-0001.sig>