[swift-evolution] SE-0025: Scoped Access Level (DECISION)
ilya.belenkiy at gmail.com
Mon Apr 4 09:54:20 CDT 2016
Just to double check: do I need to do anything with the proposal? It sounds
like it was decided, and Doug will update the proposal, but I 'd like to
make sure that there is nothing to be done on my end.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:07 PM Ilya Belenkiy <ilya.belenkiy at gmail.com>
> Great! Glad that we have a decision.
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:22 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>> Hi Everyone,
>> Thank you for all of the input. I know that this was a highly
>> contentious topic, that it is impossible to make everyone happy. Getting
>> the different inputs and perspectives has been very very useful.
>> The core team met to discuss this, and settled on the list above:
>> public/internal/fileprivate/private. This preserves the benefit of the
>> “fileprivate” concept that we have today in Swift, while aligning the
>> “private” keyword with common expectations of people coming to Swift. This
>> also makes “private" the "safe default” for cases where you don’t think
>> about which one you want to use, and this schema will cause minimal churn
>> for existing Swift code.
>> Thank you again for all of the input and discussion!
>> btw, to be clear, this is *not* an April 1 joke.
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution