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

[Pierre Monod-Broca]

I like :

- public
- modulewide or moduleprivate or internal
- filewide or fileprivate
- private

I really dislike interfile because the word exists and means something else
I dislike intermodule, inmodule and infile because I don't find them intuitive at all.

I prefer the -wide flavors because they're shorter than the -private flavors, and because -wide is an existing suffix in english.
Internal has the advantage of no modification but if we want to change it, now is the time.


> Le 31 mars 2016 à 11:10, Ross O'Brien via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> a écrit :
> 
> > public
> > internal
> > interfile
> > private
> 
> Linguistically, I really like this direction. 'interfile' is one word, it reads as an adjective, it can be used in conversation (this has interfile visibility), and it's clear about where its visibility ends.
> 
> It just doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> 'inter' means 'between'. See: 'intergalactic', 'interstellar', 'international', 'internet'. So 'interfile' would have to mean 'visible between files' - i.e. an interfile symbol in one file is visible in another file. The prefix you're looking for, meaning 'internal', is 'intra' (see: 'intravenous', 'intranet').
> 
> So the scale would become:
> 
> public / intermodule
> internal / intramodule / interfile
> intrafile
> private
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Paul Ossenbruggen via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>>:
> >>
> >>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 10:13 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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/20160331/4ccfcd7f/attachment.html>