[swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

Thu Dec 8 07:09:56 CST 2016

I understand. I am not fixed on this approach ether. I do believe that there needs to be a controllable layer of  granularity with respect to what is exposed inside of an extension. I was used this approach since the fileprivate was already there.

I am not looking to make a perceived bad situation worse. I do want to be able have encapsulation in an extension that can be shared in a group that is easy to define and to perceive. Adrian had mentioned an idea that, if I understood it correctly, was based on some modifier to the AC of private.

I can appreciate that what I suggested as a solution may not be well received but I would like to elevate this up to the question of: "Is there support in the community for a way of having properties and methods marked as only accessible between a group of related extensions  and the object type that they are extending?"

- Jim
_____________________________
From: Saagar Jha <saagar at saagarjha.com<mailto:saagar at saagarjha.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?
To: Adrian Zubarev <adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com<mailto:adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com>>
Cc: swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org<mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>>, Jim Malak <jim.malak at beryle-lee.com<mailto:jim.malak at beryle-lee.com>>

Did someone ask for more feedback?

Overall, I'm pretty -1 on this proposal. I never really liked the fileprivate solution of scope being created to match (in my mind not quite related) file system/organizational boundaries of files–but it was the best compromise we could come up with at the time (I’m up for improvements, but I fear that it’s too late to change now). The issue with directoryprivate/folderprivate is that it takes these issues from fileprivate and compounds across many files. With one file it’s easy to figure out what’s going on, but once you have a more than a few than keeping track of access between them becomes a pain.

Saagar Jha

On Dec 8, 2016, at 4:38 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org<mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:

As an advice, you should first hear out what the community thinks about the idea, before writing anything, because one person might share your idea. Others including myself may not like it. Wait for more feedback first. ;)

--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 13:35:56, Jim Malak (jim.malak at beryle-lee.com<mailto:jim.malak at beryle-lee.com>) schrieb:

Great. Is there some other steps I should go through or is the next step to write a draft proposal?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.malak at beryle-lee.com<mailto:jim.malak at beryle-lee.com>
http://beryle-lee.com<http://beryle-lee.com/>
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc

________________________________
From: Aron Lindberg <aronl at me.com<mailto:aronl at me.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:34:06 AM
To: Jim Malak
Cc: Adrian Zubarev; swift-evolution at swift.org<mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

Since Xcode is not a requirement for Swift development no, I was talking about a file system folder.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.30, Jim Malak via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org<mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:

I totally agree.  For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of "folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather than some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project folder that at times can leave on one confused.

My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to decide what is a folder. Does that sound ok?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.malak at beryle-lee.com<mailto:jim.malak at beryle-lee.com>
http://beryle-lee.com<http://beryle-lee.com/>
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc

________________________________
From: Aron Lindberg <aronl at me.com<mailto:aronl at me.com>>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM
To: Adrian Zubarev
Cc: Jim Malak; swift-evolution at swift.org<mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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. [facepalm]

Instead of just going with

privateprivate(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<mailto: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<mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
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<mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20161208/76809ee7/attachment-0001.html>