[swift-evolution] final + lazy + fileprivate modifiers

[Xiaodi Wu]

Although there was willingness to depart from conventions in other C-style
languages, I believe it was decided that having a counterpart to other
languages' "private" that isn't named private *and* also a "private" that
isn't a counterpart to other languages' "private" was too idiosyncratic and
actively confusing.

If I recall, the proposal as submitted for core team review actually
proposed something like you suggest, and it was the core team that decided
to change it on review.


On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 16:36 Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 17, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 17, 2017, at 12:29 AM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Personally I feel enforced encapsulation of implementation detail to
> the latter group is less important than the former, and can be handled by
> convention. Whereas other users of your module definitely benefit from
> access control and being able to consume a clearly-defined interface.
> >
> > I think failing to provide some sort of below-`internal` privacy would
> be missing *really* low-hanging fruit for no good reason. The languages I
> can think of which don't include some sort of sub-library-wide privacy
> level—Objective-C, Javascript, Perl, Python—usually have very simple object
> designs with a flat namespace. (Well, there's Rust, but Rust lets you wrap
> anything you'd like in a module.) Even Objective-C in practice includes a
> `fileprivate` equivalent in the form of methods declared only in the .m
> file.
> >
> > I also think it's often helpful to be able to change a member's access
> level without having to change all references to it. Publishing or
> privatizing an interface is not an uncommon refactoring.
> >
> > Not everybody likes our current semantics, but that's no reason to throw
> the feature out entirely.
>
> +1.  I’d like to see `private` revert to the Swift 2 meaning, and
> hopefully we can reconsider using `scoped` as the keyword for scoped access
> rather than abandoning it.  Does anyone remember why this was considered a
> bad idea?
>
> >
> > --
> > Brent Royal-Gordon
> > Architechies
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20170217/9321e387/attachment.html>