[swift-evolution] Swift evolution proposal: introduce typeprivate access control level

Fri Dec 2 05:36:43 CST 2016

@Adrian

I do agree with you when you state "But instead of introducing even more
access modifiers we probably should fix some of the existing ones". As I
mentioned in the proposal, typeprivate level could somehow
replace fileprivate which, in my opinion, falls short in promoting good
design practices. While I'm sure that's not it's intent, it surely creates
conditions for some dodgy patterns to emerge.

Also, would you be so kind to provide an example where typepublic would be
useful? Maybe you're thinking of allowing member access to subclasses?
Would that fall into a possible "protected" realm?

I agree we should handle protocol access control as well. In fact, I
believe protocols in general should be subject of focus if we're to promote
a protocol oriented programming environment. I believe there's some aspects
within protocol usage which also lack robustness which lead, for instance,
to type erasure solutions, which in my opinion feel like some somehow hacky.
Still, I believe there's so much we can add to protocol access control
level, one can actually build a proposal out of it (I'd gladly take part of
this discussion as well!), otherwise we'd be adding so much more to this
proposal's intent than what it's essence demands: a way to access private
members on extensions placed on separate files.

@Rien

"And the funny thing is, we don’t actually _need_ access control levels."
I tend do disagree. I believe we do profit from access control levels in
many many ways. One does profit from clearer and safer API communication. I
assume you consider that's vital as well since you do suggest a finer
grained list of access control levels.

"I consider it dangerous by default to open up a scope just because another
class needs occasional".
Couldn't agree more!

Best,
Gonçalo

2016-12-02 10:43 GMT+00:00 Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org>:

> There is some really deep talk going on here again. But instead of
> introducing even more access modifiers we probably should fix some of the
> existing ones.
>
> Don’t get me wrong, I understand what the authors of the proposal are
> trying to introduce to the language, but even if such a proposal would be
> accepted, there will be people who would beg for typepublic access
> modifier.
>
> I tried to get some attention from the community after we introduced open
> to the language, because we literally created an inconsistent area for
> protocols.
>
> Now we have open vs public classes, where open means you can subclass
> your type from module A in module B, and public prevents this.
>
> What’s up with protocols?
>
> (protocol) conforming == abstract subtyping (classes)
>
> Fixing this area would prevent the API user from using protocols which are
> public but not meant to be used there (at least not to be conformed to),
> because there was some implementation artifact that prevented the framework
> author from hiding such a protocol.
>
> Something like “hands off from _SomeName protocols” could be enforced by
> the language rather than some convention, which some API users might not
> even read.
>
> That said, some hacks like this should be prevented:
>
> struct A : _ExpressibleByBuiltinIntegerLiteral {
>     init(_builtinIntegerLiteral value: _MaxBuiltinIntegerType) {}
> }
>
> struct B : ExpressibleByIntegerLiteral {
>     init(integerLiteral value: A) {
>         print(type(of: value))
>     }
> }
>
> let b: B = 42 // prints "A"
>
> We introduced an exclusive access modifier for classes which is really odd
> to be honest. We should extend it to protocols as well.
>
> In Module A:
>
>    - open protocol X - can be conformed to from module B
>    - public protocol Y - cannot be confronted to from module B, but
>    instead might be used as an interface
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 2. Dezember 2016 um 09:56:49, Rien via swift-evolution (
> swift-evolution at swift.org) schrieb:
>
> And the funny thing is, we don’t actually _need_ access control levels.
>
> The only purpose of access control is to enhance security/reliability by
> imposing restrictions on other programmers (API users).
>
> It seems to me that in almost all discussions the arguments are mostly
> backwards: i.e. formulated from the perspective of the API users. Maybe
> because just about all programmers are API users of the OS-API? Anyway…
>
> What I would like to see is a complete overhaul of the access control and
> rewrite it entirely from the perspective of the API provider.
> I.e. give a more fine grained control to the API writer in the sense that
> he can specify exactly which other piece of code has access. I consider it
> dangerous by default to open up a scope just because another class needs
> occasional access. (i.e. give -for example- module access just because
> there is 1 other class in the module that needs that access. Inadvertently
> opening up access to all other classes in that module.)
>
> An access control list could do just that. Perhaps something like:
>
> access(type, MyFriendClass(get))
>
> The above would provide access to the entire type (but not any children)
> and read-only from MyFriendClass.
>
> A quick -off the cuff- list of access levels:
>
> local: access only to local scope (default)
> type: Only the type in which it is defined (no children)
> child: The type and its children
> <type-name>: Access is granted to the type named
> file: Access is limited to this file only
> <file-name>: Access is granted to the named file
> module: Access is granted to the entire module
> <module-name>: Access is granted to the module with the given name
> public: Access is granted to everybody
>
> Further access specification could be made possible through the use of the
> dot-notation:
>
> <type-name>.<function-name>
> <file-name>.<class-name | function-name>
> <module-name>.<class-name>.<function-name>
>
> Read/write control through a parameter passing notation:
>
> <type-name>.<function-name>([[get],][set])
>
> Examples:
>
> access(type) var count: Int // entire type can read/write
> access(type(get), type.incrementer) var count: Int // Entire type can
> read, only the incrementer function has read/write
> access(module, FriendType, public(get)) var count: Int // Entire module
> can read/write, FriendType can read/write, others can only read
>
> Regards,
> Rien
>
> Site: http://balancingrock.nl
> Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
> Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien
> Project: http://swiftfire.nl
>
>
>
>
> > On 01 Dec 2016, at 21:38, Brandon Knope via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> > Is anyone starting to think the current access control model will become
> more burdensome over time?
> >
> > People will want to add and subtract to it for years to come...which
> tells me it's not very flexible. I'm beginning to feel like it is an old
> style model trying to fit into a modern language.
> >
> > For example, fileprivate and private encourage stuffing a lot of code
> into one file just to use that access control level. If you want to break
> this into more manageable chunks you have to make it internal or move it
> into a new module which is very complicated to do in Xcode (I.e requiring a
> new target like a framework).
> >
> > This keeps leading me back to having submodules or creating modules on
> demand. I think that would open up this system to great complexity.
> >
> > Want to keep something private to a specific class but private to
> anything outside of it? Make it internal to the same "submodule".
> >
> > I think we could keep tacking on things to access control, but I don't
> think it is really solving everyone's needs. I think a more flexible system
> would allow people to adapt it to their needs instead of structuring
> everything around a rigid system that forces you to do it swift's way.
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Gonçalo Alvarez Peixoto via
> swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello, everyone!
> >>
> >> I would like to introduce a new proposal to swift evolution, but first
> I would love to run it by all of you so I get everyone's feedback and
> enrich it.
> >>
> >> This proposal consists of introducing a new typeprivate access control
> level which allows for members to be accessed in all extensions of a given
> type, whether lying within or in another file.
> >>
> >> You'll find the proposal draft in:
> >> https://github.com/goncaloalvarez/swift-evolution/blob/master/
> proposals/NNNN-introduce-typeprivate-access-control-level.md
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance for taking the time to evaluate the proposal.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Gonçalo
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161202/758f2596/attachment.html>