[swift-evolution] private & fileprivate

[Austin Zheng]

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 9:13 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> To summarise, it seems that the confusion the proposal brought over semantics and style are not worth the limited benefits that it brought. I’d be tempted to backtrack the proposal and re-introduce private as a file scoped access-level and deprecate fileprivate.

This is my personal preference, to back out the fileprivate/private change before Swift becomes any more crystallized. That being said, I think the bar for 'novel insight' has to be very high for something like this to be a wise idea, lest we end up endlessly revisiting every idea that wasn't unanimously popular. Do we have any evidence the new access control system is proving a hindrance to developers, or specific information we didn't have during the original discussion?

Austin

> 
> Thoughts?
> David.
> 
>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 17:21, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> While no topic is formally off the table, to revisit a topic requires fresh insight. `private(file)` was suggested at the time and rejected in favor of `fileprivate`, and we really don't need another rehash of how much each person likes one or the other.
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 09:02 Adriano Ferreira via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> I would also rather have:
>> 
>> private(scope)
>> private(file)
>> private(module)
>> etc…
>> 
>> — A
>> 
>>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:24 AM, Haravikk via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 07:39, David Hart via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello community,
>>>> 
>>>> From all the proposals which has gone into Swift 3, [SE-0025] Scoped Access Level is the only one I’m having second thoughts about. Before launching a discussion around it, I’m curious to know if it's worth discussing it or if the “ship has sailed”. As the plan is to allow future versions of Swift to break source-compatibility in certain rare scenarios, perhaps we have a chance to reconsider certain proposals?
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> David.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>> 
>>> What in particular don't you like about it?
>>> 
>>> Personally I still don't like the use of fileprivate as the keyword, I was very much in favour of a bracketed system like:
>>> 
>>> 	private(scope)		Current private (I think, it doesn't appear to be equivalent to protected in other languages anyway so I wouldn't call it type).
>>> 	private(file)		Current fileprivate
>>> 	private(module)	Current internal/default when omitted
>>> 	public			Current public
>>> 
>>> I favour this because it groups all restrictive access levels under private (since they're all some form of private) with an optional modifier that's explicit about what it's for. Also, it would have scope to move things like final into a modifier too, so you might declare a method as public(final), or public(open) if that's implemented later and so-on. Just seems like a generally more flexible setup that also reduces the number of keywords required.
>>> 
>>> Some may feel it's noisy, but personally I don't see it as a problem as it always comes before the func/var/let keyword, generics and function name, so it's not like it's near anything where the (minor) noise reduces readability.
>>> 
>>> But yeah, having used the new fileprivate for a little while I just don't like it; it may partly come down to the fact that I use fileprivate a lot more than I use regular private. If we were to adopt the above scheme I would recommend that private(file) be the default for use of the plain private keyword, unless we gain the ability to specify private(type) (i.e- protected in most other languages), as private(scope) seems like it's the less common, at least in my experience.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto: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/20161007/7df2e32d/attachment.html>