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

[Paul Ossenbruggen]

One bonus it is a real word so autocorrect doesn’t fix it! I checked the dictionary and there are no negative or misleading meaning. 

It is a verb though, this is not being used as a verb in this case. 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/interfile <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/interfile>

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 10:04 PM, Paul Ossenbruggen <possen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> public
> internal
> interfile
> private
> 
> still googleable and very clear its scope and meaning, nice latin root. Doesn’t overload “private”, slightly shorter. 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Looks good to me.
>> 
>> -Thorsten 
>> 
>>> Am 31.03.2016 um 06:22 schrieb Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>:
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 10:13 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> 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.
>>> 
>>> I’ve seen a number of concerns on this list about moduleprivate, and how it penalizes folks who want to explicitly write their access control.  I’ve come to think that there is yes-another possible path forward here (which I haven’t seen mentioned so far):
>>> 
>>> public
>>> internal
>>> 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) Compared to Swift 2, there is almost no change.  The only thing that changes is that some uses of Swift 2 “private” will be migrated to “fileprivate”, which makes the intent of the code much more clear.
>>> 4) fileprivate is the unusual and not-really-precedented-in-other-languages modifier, and it would still be “googable”.
>>> 5) The addresses the “excessively long” declmodifier problem that several people are concerned with.
>>> 6) Support for named submodules could be “dropped in” by parameterizing “internal”.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> -Chris
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160330/30cd762d/attachment.html>