[swift-evolution] class/struct inner member access scope classifier

[Jay Abbott]

If a submodule doesn't provide self contained functionality then it
shouldn't be a submodule, and if it does then it might as well be a
separate module. I think submodules would discourage small granular module
development and composition at a larger scale, it would discourage making a
clean public interface for the module which might make them more reusable
and testable. Also of course it would mean more keywords/syntax/classifiers
to manage it which makes things more complicated (unnecessarily in my view).

But I haven't really thought much about potential advantages... what are
they?


On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 at 19:55 Sean Heber via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> This was all already argued about *extensively*. As in.. for weeks and
> weeks.
>
> For the record, I still think things are mis-named, but that ship has
> sailed. IMO the existing “fileprivate” should have been “internal” and
> existing “internal” should have been “external”. But oh well.
>
> l8r
> Sean
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> > In another thread (no link because we’re not on a forum ;-) the idea was
> raised that in the future, if and when Swift starts using submodules, the
> “fileprivate” scope could be turned into “submodule” scope.
> >
> > By default every file would constitute its own submodule, and developers
> could choose to put several files together into a submodule if they wish.
> >
> > Perhaps there may be a shorter word that nicely implies “submodule
> scope”.
> >
> > Nevin
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 27 Sep 2016, at 14:20, Zach Waldowski via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 01:34 AM, Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution
> > > wrote:
> > >> As for dropping file private, why? You don’t have to use it if you
> don’t
> > >> want to, so it’s not hurting you. On the other hand, I can use it
> when I
> > >> deem it to be the right thing to do.
> > >
> > > I'll politely disagree and point out you *must* use fileprivate in
> order
> > > to get what it provides. It's unavoidable in that sense.
> >
> > That’s not the point I was making. It was mooted that fileprivate should
> be dropped altogether leading to not having any means of specifying file
> scope at all. I was simply pointing out that people who don’t like file
> scope already have the option of not using fileprivate.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160927/088f69ba/attachment.html>