[swift-evolution] final + lazy + fileprivate modifiers

Sun Feb 12 20:42:22 CST 2017

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Dietmar Planitzer <dplanitzer at q.com> wrote:

> I know that private was scoped to files before Swift 3.
>
> Fileprivate should obviously be removed because it is, like I said
> previously, just a poor man’s package access level. Yes, private was scoped
> to a file before Swift 3, but at least there wasn’t two kinds of private
> for a single file. Also scoping private to a file makes sense in Swift
> because it plays well with the ability to organize the implementation of a
> type inside of a file into the base type and a number of extensions. I now
> have to use fileprivate in Swift 3 to pull this off while there isn’t a
> requirement for a separate private access level. The fileprivate / private
> distinction also needlessly gets in the way when you want to refactor an
> existing type implementation into base type + extensions, all living in the
> same file.
>
> Anyway, I don’t see a good reason why we should end up with this, once
> sub-modules exist:
>
> open, public, module, fileprivate, private
>
> when we can live with this:
>
> open, public, module, private
>
> and we’re not losing anything that would be significant compared to the
> alternative scenario.
>

Well, there's also internal: open, public, internal, (submodule, however it
is named), private.

The question being discussed here is whether private should have the old or
new meaning. I tend to agree with others that the new `private` doesn't add
much. Modules are a different conversation.

> Regards,
>
> Dietmar Planitzer
>
> > On Feb 12, 2017, at 18:16, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What was added in Swift 3 was `private`; the old `private` was renamed
> `fileprivate` with no change in behavior. Certainly, submodules are a big
> topic that deserves careful consideration. But the question being discussed
> here is about rolling back the change that was implemented in Swift 3 by
> removing `private` and restoring `fileprivate` to its old name.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Dietmar Planitzer via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > Fileprivate is a feature that should not have been added to Swift 3
> because it is in the end just a needlessly limited version of the Java
> package access level. Fileprivate forces me to put all types which are
> related on an implementation level into the same file while Java packages
> allow me to put each type implementation into a separate file. The only
> thing that Java requires is that all files which are part of the same
> package are tagged with the same package id. Java’s package access level is
> more powerful than fileprivate because it gives me more freedom in how I
> want to organize my code while still making sure that code in sibling and
> parent packages can not access symbols inside my package which form part of
> the implementation details of my package.
> >
> > The first thing that needs to happen before any more access levels are
> added is that a concept of sub-modules is added to Swift along the lines of:
> >
> > 1) modules can be organized into a tree with one module as the root.
> >
> > 2) all modules which are nodes in the same module tree form a single
> resilience domain.
> >
> > IMO, the sub-module stuff should be designed similar if not the same way
> as Java packages because there are already lots and lots of SDEs who know
> how Java packages work, and Java packages are well understood, simple and
> straight-forward in their mechanics.
> >
> > Once sub-modules are in place, it makes sense to revisit the access
> level topic. Eg in order to add a “module” access level that represents the
> scope of a module. So “module” could then do what file private can do today
> plus more. But we should stop trying to add more access level to the
> language until then. We also need to look much more at the bigger picture
> of things instead of getting too much hung up on a single component of a
> larger mechanism, when it is that larger mechanism that is primarily
> interesting and relevant.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dietmar Planitzer
> >
> > > On Feb 12, 2017, at 16:16, Zach Waldowski via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I vehemently agree on these points. New-private and fileprivate "[add]
> more information" to a file the same way requiring `self.` and other sorts
> of visual noise that Swift normally eschews.
> > >
> > > I wish for the Swift community to be introspective enough to count
> both its successes and failures. SE-0025 was a botched addition to the
> language. That the migrator did such a bad job is evidence of its poor
> overall consideration. Adding a fix-it strikes me as the compiler waggling
> its finger at me for code that would've been perfectly fine in the past,
> something that it is not at all true with the "let" fix it; accidental
> mutation has been discussed a ton by the larger programming community,
> not-so-much for obscure access control mechanics.
> > >
> > > It's perplexing that fileprivate advocates continue to stand on mostly
> theoretical benefits about new-private. I feel nothing for the mathematical
> purity about the types in a file. In practice, I can with much experience
> now how awful it is. There has been no end to the confusion its
> introduction has inflicted upon my team(s), people new to the language, and
> people revisiting the language:
> > >
> > > - My teams and coworkers are less effective at code review from
> constant litigation about access control. "'Did this need to change?' /
> 'No, it was just the migrator.'" has become a disturbingly common refrain.
> > >
> > > - New users are just struggling to figure out where to put the curly
> braces in the first place. Having to make them check and re-check where
> things go in a file, or just tell them to use this clunky
> get-out-of-jail-free keyword, feels like visiting a special kind of
> Pythonic hell on a language I otherwise love and love to teach.
> > >
> > > - People returning to the language feel (and often say - just look at
> Twitter) Swift has a lot of syntax, and are frustrated that the addition of
> a new keyword was burned on adding something that amounts to mostly a
> stylistic opinion.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >   Zachary Waldowski
> > >   zach at waldowski.me
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017, at 04:45 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Matthew Johnson <
> matthew at anandabits.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> _Potentially_ meaningful, certainly. But what I'm hearing is that it
> isn't actually meaningful. Here's why:
> > >>>
> > >>> If I see `fileprivate` and can understand that to mean "gee, the
> author _designed_ this member to be visible elsewhere inside the file,"
> then it's actually meaningful. OTOH, if I see `fileprivate` and can only
> deduce "gee, the author mashed some button in his or her IDE," then it's
> not really telling me anything.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You’re looking at it backward.  It’s when you see `private` and can
> deduce “this member is only visible inside it’s declaring scope” that can
> be really helpful.  *This* is what matters.
> > >>
> > >> In what ways can that information help you?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> What you've said above, as I understand it, is that it's not
> currently meaningful to see `fileprivate` because the migrator is writing
> it and not the author. The improved approach you proposed is the additional
> warning. In that case, the compiler will help to ensure that when I see
> `fileprivate`, at least I know it's necessary. But that's only telling me a
> fact (this member is accessed at least once outside the private scope), but
> it's still machine-based bookkeeping, not authorial intent.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The important thing is that this machine-based bookkeeping results in
> a proof about the code.  This facilitates reasoning about the code.  You
> can make an argument that this proof is not important enough to matter, but
> you must admit that this is a real concrete gain in information that is
> immediately available to a reader of the code (after they know that it
> compiles).  Personally, I find this proof to be valuable.
> > >>
> > >> Comparison has been made to `let` and `var`. In that case, whether a
> variable is mutated can be non-trivial to deduce (as Swift has no uniform
> scheme for distinguishing mutating from non-mutating functions; the ed/ing
> rule has many exceptions). By contrast, here, I don't see any gain in
> information. You can literally *see* where the (file)private member is
> accessed, and when a file gets too long, even a simple text editor can do a
> decent enough find.
> > >>
> > >> If you're right that the real value is that seeing `private` helps
> you reason about the code, then that value must be commensurate to how
> often we see Swift users amending the migrator to take advantage of it. For
> me, the compelling evidence that Swift users don't find this proof to be
> valuable is that, by examination of Swift 3 code, Swift users haven't
> bothered. If we add a new fix-it to force them to, then of course they'll
> mash the buttons, but it's pretty much declaring that they are wrong not to
> care about what it seems they do not care at present.
> > >>
> > >>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>
> wrote:
> > >>> I don't fully agree: you are right that that is the case when
> writing code.  However, when reading/maintaining code, the distinction is
> meaningful and potentially important.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Chris
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> If the overwhelming use case is that developers should pick one
> over the other primarily because it looks nicer, then blindly click the
> fix-it when things stop working, then the distinction between private and
> fileprivate is pretty clearly a mere nuisance that doesn't carry its own
> weight.
> > >>>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 13:33 Jean-Daniel via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > >>>>> Le 12 févr. 2017 à 18:24, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> a écrit :
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 8:19 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Final
> > >>>>>> Can someone tell me what is the use of 'final' now that we have
> 'public' default to disallowing subclassing in importing modules? I know
> that 'final' has the added constraint of disallowing subclassing in the
> same module, but how useful is that? Does it hold its weight? Would we add
> it now if it did not exist?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As Matthew says, this is still important.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Lazy
> > >>>>>> This one is clearer: if Joe Groff's property behaviors proposal
> from last year is brought forward again, lazy can be demoted from a
> language keyword to a Standard Library property behavior. If Joe or anybody
> from the core team sees this: do we have any luck of having this awesome
> feature we discussed/designed/implemented in the Swift 4 timeframe?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Sadly, there is no chance to get property behaviors into Swift 4.
> Hopefully Swift 5, but it’s impossible to say right now.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Fileprivate
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I started the discussion early during the Swift 4 timeframe that
> I regret the change in Swift 3 which introduced a scoped private keyword.
> For me, it's not worth the increase in complexity in access modifiers. I
> was very happy with the file-scope of Swift pre-3. When discussing that,
> Chris Latner mentioned we'd have to wait for Phase 2 to re-discuss it and
> also show proof that people mostly used 'fileprivate' and not the new
> 'private' modifier as proof if we want the proposal to have any weight.
> Does anybody have a good idea for compiling stats from GitHub on this
> subject? First of all, I've always found the GitHub Search quite bad and
> don't know how much it can be trusted. Secondly, because 'private' in Swift
> 2 and 3 have different meanings, a simple textual search might get us wrong
> results if we don't find a way to filter on Swift 3 code.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would still like to re-evaluate fileprivate based on information
> in the field.  The theory of the SE-0025 (https://github.com/apple/
> swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md) was
> that the fileprivate keyword would be used infrequently: this means that it
> would uglify very little code and when it occurred, it would carry meaning
> and significance.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Infrequent use and significance are orthogonal.
> > >>>> I still think developers would declare all ivars private (this is
> less ugly and shorter), and then will happily convert them to fileprivate
> each time the compiler will tell them they are not accessible somewhere
> else in the file.
> > >>>> As the code that try to access that ivar is in the same file
> anyway, it has full knowledge of the implementation details and there is no
> good reason it shouldn’t be able to access the ivar when needed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> We have a problem with evaluating that theory though: the Swift
> 2->3 migrator mechanically changed all instances of private into
> fileprivate.  This uglified a ton of code unnecessarily and (even worse)
> lead programmers to think they should use fileprivate everywhere.  Because
> of this, it is hard to look at a random Swift 3 codebase and determine
> whether SE-0025 is working out as intended.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The best way out of this that I can think of is to add a *warning*
> to the Swift 3.1 or 4 compiler which detects uses of fileprivate that can
> be tightened to “private” and provide a fixit to do the change.  This would
> be similar to how we suggest changing ‘var’ into ‘let’ where possible.
> Over time, this would have the effect of getting us back to the world we
> intended in SE-0025.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Chris
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> 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
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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/20170212/40fc1684/attachment.html>