[swift-evolution] Suggestion to clean up the mess around access modifiers
adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com
Tue Feb 21 08:44:41 CST 2017
Updated with a third suggestion which makes it more clear that ‘closed’ by default simply does not work without allowing the existence of closed protocols.
Formated version: https://gist.github.com/DevAndArtist/ae33145aa71a6212981b54c307e7c1e6/edit
Suggestion 1 Suggestion 2 Suggestion 3 Swift 3 Implication of #3
public open open public open open
closed public public public public public
final public closed final public final public final public
internal internal internal internal internal
final internal final internal final internal final internal final internal
private private private fileprivate private
final private final private final private final fileprivate final private
scoped scoped scoped private scoped
open is no more an exclusive access modifier, which shouldn’t exist in the first place, because of the mentioned exclusivity. That’s what attributes are meant for.
Allowing closed public protocols seems straightforward for Suggestion 1.
First suggestion aligns the closed attribute very well with final and its purpose becomes crystal clear.
scoped is a straw_hat_name from the on going discussions, you can replace it with something better.
fixed public is from Matthew’s discussion thread.
Third suggestion makes open as an attribute, however this is a breaking change for all other types different form classes, because currently protocols have open semantics, and value types might get subtypes one day, which makes them closed by today’s standards. The default in the first suggestion is alway open, compared to the third suggestion, which is closed.
The implication of the third suggestion is the necessary fix for protocols: open/public protocol (shown in the last row).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution