[swift-evolution] final + lazy + fileprivate modifiers

[Chris Lattner]

> On Feb 12, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> FWIW, you're not the first to propose these names. `public(open)` was suggested during the `open` debate and rejected in favor of `open`. `private(file)` was suggested during the `fileprivate` debate and rejected in favor of `fileprivate`. `protected` and `abstract` have been suggested on this list multiple times.

Yes, these proposals are not going to happen IMO.  I don’t speak for the core team, but we should be aiming to *reduce* complexity in the access control space (even at the cost of expressivity) — not increase it.

-Chris


> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Vanderlei Martinelli via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> Some corrections and additions to my previous email:
> 
> public(open)  // if open is absent, the method is “closed”
> protected     // (yes, we and Cocoa still use classes)
> internal
> private(file) // if file is absent, the method is really, really private
> ​
> And one observation: protected and abstract as described before: only to be valid for classes, of course. Something like local access modifier for local only scope would be nice too (and does not break anything written until today).
> 
> —
> Vanderlei Martinelli
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution <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/20170213/e0260e09/attachment.html>