[swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?
Adrian Zubarev
adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com
Thu Dec 8 07:05:02 CST 2016
Overkill or not, grouping files into a folder/group + folderprivate smells exactly like a submodule to me. ;)
The only thing I’m repeating over and over is that we should fix that open mess and allow protocols to have the same open/public access level as classes have.
open protocol from module A is allowed to be conformed to from module B
public protocol from module A can only be used as an interface in module B
--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail
Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 13:52:27, Aron Lindberg (aronl at me.com) schrieb:
I realise the general opinion here seems to be that we don't want any more changes to the access modifiers and I can understand why, but please take a look at the use case below:
"fileprivate" is needed for certain things like Equatable since the equatable function might need to know about private properties in a class. Lets say I have two structs:
struct A {
...
}
struct B {
...
}
Both are rather big so I declare each in a separate file (File A, File B), but I need to implement an equals function between these two structs that need access to private properties in both structs. This leaves me with two options:
a) Move the two structs into one file and use fileprivate and implement the equals function here. The result is one long messy file.
b) Move the two files into a separate module and use "internal" for the variables I need acces to. This feels like overkill and struct A/B might have dependencies that make this inconvenient.
Am I missing a more optimal solution here?
My point is there are legit use cases of fileprivate there might lead to one really big file, with several classes. Having a folderprivate access level would be one possible solution to this.
> On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.22, Rien via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> Will discprivate be next? and then systemprivate? </facetious>
>
> -1
>
> Regards,
> Rien
>
> Site: http://balancingrock.nl
> Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
> Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien
> Project: http://swiftfire.nl
>
>
>
>
>> On 08 Dec 2016, at 12:27, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> Personal statement: –1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrian Zubarev
>> Sent with Airmail
>>
>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 12:26:17, Aron Lindberg (aronl at me.com) schrieb:
>>
>>> I think this is a great idea!
>>>
>>> I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.
>>>
>>>> On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still sleepy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Adrian Zubarev
>>>> Sent with Airmail
>>>>
>>>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev (adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com) schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate yet. :D
>>>>>
>>>>> @core-team: See what you have done with >>file<<private thing. typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of just going with
>>>>>
>>>>> private
>>>>> private(file)
>>>>>
>>>>> // for new one
>>>>> private(type)
>>>>>
>>>>> I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we have fileprivate now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that falls into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Adrian Zubarev
>>>>> Sent with Airmail
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution (swift-evolution at swift.org) schrieb:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and restrict their use to the object type I am extending as long as everything is in one file via fileprivate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory that contains my associated extensions (also in separate files) and be able to restrict the access of appropriate properties and methods to that common directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate files based on function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be using instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> Jim Malak
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/20161208/2b7dcd2f/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list