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

[Michel Fortin]

Or maybe we could just abolish of file-private. It's not like it'd be 100% gone: private declarations at the root of a file will always be equivalent to file-private. For non-root things that need to be accessible within the file you can use `internal`, which is more accessible than before but still bounded to the current module.


> Le 31 mars 2016 à 0:22, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> a écrit :
> 
> 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

-- 
Michel Fortin
https://michelf.ca