[swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

[Xiaodi Wu]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com>
wrote:

>
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez <cheyo at masters3d.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I know this might be have been brought up before but
>> >
>> > why not just disallow the “private" keyword for top level types,
>> extensions etc.
>> >
>> > A fixit could change top level `private` to `fileprivate`.
>> >
>> > I think this is a little less confusing since effectively this is what
>> is happening in the background.
>>
>> That doesn’t fix anything for inner types, so it’s a lot less important
>> than the rest of the amendment.
>>
>> There actually is an answer to this, which is that the core team expects
>> 'private' to be the common keyword, and therefore it’s better if you can
>> use it at the top level and ignore ‘fileprivate’ altogether in most
>> programs.
>>
>
> On second thought, wouldn't all of this be inapplicable if `private`
> literally meant visibility *only* within the current declaration, and
> neither outside it nor inside any nested types, etc.?
>
>
> Yes, but that's not very useful:
>
> public struct Foo {
>   private var value: Int = 0
>   public func test() {
>     print(value) // error
>   }
> }
>
>
> I suppose you could say that nested *types* are different from nested
> *functions,* but then we start getting complexity in a different
> direction. And it still doesn't fix the default access within a private
> type.
>
>
> And some of us wouldn’t like that direction which means we may not end up
> with a solution that makes more people happy anyway at which point we’re
> back where we started.
>

Looking back on SE-0025, the problem is that the proposal itself has no
details that even come close to resolving any of these differences. The
only thing that came up for discussion and was agreed to was that `private`
should mean something "visible only within that lexical scope." None of
this is close to settled and we're probably better off actually debating
this in a real proposal.


>
>
> Jordan
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160629/7bd157d1/attachment.html>