[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access Levels
Ross O'Brien
narrativium+swift at gmail.com
Mon Mar 27 12:00:50 CDT 2017
I'm considering this from a different angle.
When we declare a type, we declare properties and functions which that type
has.
When we extend a type, we add functions to the type. (I'm including
computed properties in this.)
It's become an idiom of Swift to declare an extension to a type for each
protocol we want it to conform to, for reasons of code organisation and
readability. This may be true even if conformance to the protocol was a
primary intent of creating the type in the first place.
The intent of the scoped access level is to allow programmers to create
properties and functions which are limited to the scope of their
declaration. A protocol conformance can be written, with the aid of helper
functions, in the confidence that the helper functions are not visible
outside the extension, minimising their impact on other components of the
module.
However, some protocol conformances require the type to have a specific
property, which the extension cannot facilitate. Some protocol conformances
don't require a property, but it would be really useful to have one, and
again an extension can't facilitate.
Example: we want to be able to write this, but we can't:
private protocol Bar
{
var integer : Int { get }
func increment()
}
struct Foo
{
}
extension Foo : Bar
{
var integer : Int
private var counter : Int
func increment()
{
counter += 1
}
}
This leads to a workaround: that properties are added to the original type,
and declared as fileprivate. They're not intended to be visible to any
scope other than the conforming extension - not even, really, to the type's
original scope.
Continuing the example: we've compromised and written this:
private protocol Bar
{
var integer : Int { get }
func increment()
}
struct Foo
{
fileprivate var integer : Int
fileprivate var counter : Int
}
extension Foo : Bar
{
func increment()
{
counter += 1
}
}
This is not a fault of fileprivate (though it's a clunky name), or private.
Renaming these levels does not solve the problem. Removing private, such
that everything becomes fileprivate, does not solve the problem. The
problem is in the extension system.
(At this point I realise I'm focusing on one problem as if it's the only
one.)
Supposing we approached extensions differently. I think around SE-0025 we
were considering a 'nested' access level.
Supposing we created a 'conformance region' inside a type declaration - a
scope nested within the type declaration scope - and that this conformance
region had its own access level. It's inside the type declaration, not
separate from it like an extension, so we can declare properties inside it.
But literally the only properties and functions declared inside the region
but visible anywhere outside of it, would be properties and functions
declared in the named protocol being conformed to.
So, visually it might look like this:
private protocol Bar
{
var integer : Int { get }
func increment()
}
struct Foo
{
conformance Bar // or conformance Foo : Bar, but since the region is
inside Foo that's redundant
{
var integer : Int // visible because Foo : Bar, at Bar's access level
var counter : Int = 0 // only visible inside the conformance scope,
because not declared in Bar
func increment() // visible because Foo : Bar, at Bar's access level
{
counter += 1
}
}
}
I've introduced a new keyword, conformance, though it may be clear enough
to keep using extension inside a scope for this. Foo still conforms to Bar,
in the same file. We've removed 'extension Foo :' and moved a '}' for this,
but that's not a breaking change as this is an addition. Readability is
compromised to the extent that this conformance is indented one level.
I've not long had the idea. It's a different approach and may be worth a
discussion thread of its own for - or someone might point out some
glaringly obvious flaw in it. If it's useful, I don't know the full
implications this would have, such as how much this would reduce the use of
fileprivate (e.g. to none, to the minimal levels expected in SE-0025, or no
effect at all). It's just intended to remove a problem which fileprivate is
applied as a bad workaround for.
Ross
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Rien via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:46, Steven Knodl via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >
> > Late to the party here
> >
> > * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> > I’m -1 on this. The proposal is not a difficult read, but may have been
> simply more simply named “Remove Scoped Access Level/Revert SE-0025” as
> that is what is being proposed. “Fix” seems to me to be a unfortunately
> worded judgmental proposal title.
> >
> > * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change?
> > No. I consider myself to be a fairly “new/n00b” Obj-C/Swift developer.
> Although SE-0025 was a change that required source changes when
> implemented, the reasoning was not difficult to understand and changes were
> simple to make once identified. Here they are from SE-0025
> >
> > • public: symbol visible outside the current module
> > • internal: symbol visible within the current module
> > • fileprivate: symbol visible within the current file
> > • private: symbol visible within the current declaration
> >
> > Moving forward these changes are not difficult to comprehend. I tend to
> make _everything_ “private” up front so I don’t have any API leakage. Then
> dial back to “fileprivate” as needed. It’s not difficult for me I guess.
>
> Right. I do that myself more than I would like to admit.
> But when we only loosen up/tighten down during coding then access levels
> are almost useless.
> The point of access level control is in the design, not in the coding.
> If we made a design (including access levels) and then have to dial back,
> that should be a warning that something is wrong.
> To me, this is an argument in favour of the proposal.
>
> Rien.
>
>
>
> > As such, I don’t believe that this change was “Actively Harmful”,
> especially for new developers who have a clean slate or simply are leaving
> everything unmarked (internal) anyhow until they move up to more advanced
> topics. Unraveling a generic or functional code someone else wrote uses
> way more cognitive power.
> >
> > I’d like to address the suggestion that the migration for SE-0159 could
> “simply” be a search and replace without loss of functionality. This
> doesn’t make sense if you consider the entire code lifecycle. Sure the
> code gets migrated and compiles. This is fine if they code _never_ has to
> be read again. But as we know, code is written once and _read many times_
> as it will need to be maintained. The distinction between private and
> fileprivate contains information, and although it may work correctly now,
> some information meant to help maintain that code has been lost if these
> keywords are merged and the functionality of scoped access is removed. So
> yes if you don’t maintain the code where this migration takes place, this
> would be ok. But Swift strives for readability. Moving classes to separate
> files to address these issues, creates a multitude of Bunny classes where
> again for readability some classes belong together in the same file for
> ease of comprehension (again, code is written once , read many times)
> >
> > * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
> > The spirit of the proposal to simplify access levels is well taken.
> This proposal however simplifies at the expense of lost functionality
> (Scoped Access levels) with no replacement. The threads talk a about
> submodules and other solutions that could fill this gap that are not on the
> roadmap, planned or possible which makes them non-admissible in
> considering this proposal.
> >
> > * If you have used other languages, libraries, or package managers with
> a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
> > I am more familiar with scoped access so perhaps that feels more natural
> to me. But with the current implementation Swift users can choose whether
> they use File Based or Scope Based tools, so although not ideal to either
> side, acceptable until a suitable replacement could be forged.
> >
> > * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
> reading, or an in-depth study?
> > Re-read SE-0025/proposal/most of this very long thread
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <swift-evolution-bounces at swift.org> on behalf of Tino Heth via
> swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>
> > Reply-To: Tino Heth <2th at gmx.de>
> > Date: Monday, March 27, 2017 at 6:48 AM
> > To: Zach Waldowski <zach at waldowski.me>
> > Cc: <swift-evolution at swift.org>
> > Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access
> Levels
> >
> >
> >
> >> I am now absolutely thrilled to create a filter to Mark As Read
> anything else arising from this thread. Good luck.
> >
> > That might be a good idea — after more than 200 messages, and a quite
> circular discussion with an unhealthy amount of ignorance for the opposing
> side ;-).
> >
> > To fight the latter, I just tried to take the position that "new
> private" is really important, and this imho leads to interesting
> consequences...
> > This access modifier really doesn't solve a problem, like "let" does
> (unless the problem you want to solve is having a language with private
> access).
> > Have a look at this:
> >
> > public struct SeperateConcerns {
> > private var foo: Int = 0
> > public mutating func updateFoo(_ value: Int) {
> > print("The only allowed way to change foo was invoked")
> > foo = value
> > }
> >
> > private var bar: Int = 0
> > public mutating func updateBar(_ value: Int) {
> > print("The only allowed way to change bar was invoked")
> > bar = value
> > }
> >
> > private var foobar: Int = 0
> > public mutating func updateFoobar(_ value: Int) {
> > print("The only allowed way to change foobar was invoked")
> > foobar = value
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> > You can protect foo from being changed by code in other files, and from
> extensions in the same file — and if the latter is a concern, there should
> also be a way to limit access to foo to specific function in scope.
> > Afaik, somebody proposed "partial" type declarations, but without them,
> the meaning of private is rather arbitrary, and the feature is only useful
> for a tiny special case.
> > If we had partial types, the situation would be different, and if would
> be possible to declare extensions inside a partial declaration of another
> type, we could even remove fileprivate without an replacement (I guess I
> should write a separate mail for this thought…)
> > _______________________________________________ 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/20170327/77ff94a6/attachment.html>
More information about the swift-evolution
mailing list