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

[Xiaodi Wu]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Matthew Johnson <matthew at anandabits.com>
wrote:

>
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> 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.
>>
>
> FWIW, the text of SE-0025 itself makes no proposal about `private` as an
> access level for types (only, strangely, nested types).
>
>
> It proposed introducing a general access level.  If any kind of limitation
> regarding which declarations it applied to was intended that would have
> been stated explicitly.  Omission of a specific class of declaration from
> the list of examples should not be interpreted as an intention to make
> `private` inapplicable to those declarations.
>

I don't doubt that the intent was a general access level. However, in
failing to mention top-level declarations of any sort as well as types, the
proposal itself fails to present a vision for two critical issues being
discussed here: (1) the issue of utterability; and (2) what to do when
`private` and `fileprivate` are equivalent in meaning. Both of these
scenarios are unprecedented because the three existing access levels do not
have these issues. If we had a fuller vision of the design challenges
during the initial proposal and review, these might have been resolved to
more general satisfaction before implementation was attempted.


>
>
>
>>
>> Jordan
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>> 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/20160629/5b5ee375/attachment.html>