[swift-evolution] Swift evolution proposal: introduce typeprivate access control level
Gonçalo Alvarez Peixoto
goncalo.alvarezpeixoto at gmail.com
Fri Dec 2 06:05:18 CST 2016
"The thing is, typeprivate cannot replace fileprivate, just because
fileprivate adds internal visibility to other scopes inside the same file
and does not restrict it to the same type. And I really love that aspect of
While I do see the advantages in exposing members within the same file, we
must agree that can promote somehow odd patterns of chunking code into the
same file. As I said before, that's definitely not the intent, however
there's no mechanism of preventing it. I believe typeprivate would
definitely help in scoping and improving code readability while we're at it!
private // like `private(scope)`
private(file) // like `internal(file)`
private(type) // in your case
I must say I am very fond of this solution as well. It clearly conveys the
"PS: I also cannot wait for existentials to drop typealias ProtoB =
Any<Proto> where Proto.A == B where B comes from a generic parameter list
and A is an associated type."
2016-12-02 11:58 GMT+00:00 Adrian Zubarev <adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com>:
> IMO there is no need for something like typepublic to even exist, but in
> theory it would be something like where a subclass has more visibility of
> the internal stuff of its super type. I’m just saying that someone will
> want this, because that person might thing that typepublic and typeprivate
> would be consistent.
> In general I’m for anything that adds flexibility, but flexibility means
> also more complexity.
> The thing is, typeprivate cannot replace fileprivate, just because
> fileprivate adds internal visibility to other scopes inside the same file
> and does not restrict it to the same type. And I really love that aspect of
> Swift. :)
> It already has been discussed thousands of times but I cannot resist and
> also state my preference to something like:
> private // like `private(scope)`
> private(file) // like `internal(file)`
> private(type) // in your case
> This is a POP language right? So lets focus on fixing and improving
> protocols. :) We should start with open/public protocol.
> PS: I also cannot wait for existentials to drop typealias ProtoB =
> Any<Proto> where Proto.A == B where B comes from a generic parameter list
> and A is an associated type.
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> Am 2. Dezember 2016 um 12:36:45, Gonçalo Alvarez Peixoto (
> goncalo.alvarezpeixoto at gmail.com) schrieb:
> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution