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

[Jesse Squires]

I really like this. +1 for the following:

public
internal
fileprivate
private

-Jesse

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Jesse Squires

*blog* | jessesquires.com <http://www.jessesquires.com>
*github* | github.com/jessesquires <http://www.github.com/jessesquires>
*hexedbits* | hexedbits.com <http://www.hexedbits.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160330/f3bf443c/attachment.html>