[swift-evolution] Idea: Public Access Modifier Respected in Type Definition

[Tony Allevato]

I don't want this to come across as though I'm trying to shut down
discussion (because it's not my place to do so), but a significant amount
of time was spent during the Swift 4 design phases debating how access
levels should work, decisions were made, and I think many of us would like
to move on and give time to other topics.

I'd encourage you to look back through the archives and familiarize
yourselves with the points made during that time. While it's always
possible, I think it's unlikely that there will be new evidence introduced
that would be so strong as to give the Swift team reason to, once again,
make major source-breaking changes to access levels as late as Swift 5.



On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:31 PM Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> +1000
>
> This is the way it always should have worked… and it is the way my brain
> still expects it to work.  All of the extraneous “Public”s clutter the code
> and make it much more difficult to read.  Without it, the relatively few
> properties marked Internal or Private stand out.
>
> I know there is the argument about making people think about whether they
> want to expose each item… but it doesn’t work that way.  Once you assign
> someone a rote task (assigning Public to most of the things), you lose the
> effect of having them think.  From a cognitive psychology lens, when you
> give the brain a number of decisions to make in a row that are very
> similar, it will naturally make that task more efficient by automating as
> much of it as possible (i.e. thinking about it less).  Mistakes become much
> more likely as a result.
>
> Tl;dr:  Despite the* myth*/intention that the current setup makes you*
> think about the problem more,* it actually does the* opposite* and leads
> to an *increased risk of error*.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
>
> On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:44 AM, James Valaitis via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> When declaring a public class or struct the properties still default to
> internal.
> ```
> public final class NewType {
> /// This property defaults to internal.
> var property: Any?
> }
> ```
>
> This is not the same for a public extension on the type, where then the
> access modifier is respected for any function or calculated property within
> the extension.
> ```
> public extension NewType {
> /// This function inherits the public modifier.
> func function() {
> }
> }
> ```
>
> I dislike this inconsistency, and I frequently find that when using my
> dynamic frameworks my code will not compile, and it will be due to my
> accidentally writing a public struct but not declaring the properties
> public.
>
> I believe in the idea that explicitly stating the access modifier leads to
> more legible code, but in my opinion it can be overdone, and I much prefer
> to explicitly state my intentions in the modifier on the definition or
> extension. For example:
>
> ```
> public struct Coordinate {
> /// Should default to public.
> let latitude: Double
> /// Should default to public.
> let longitude: Double
> /// Should default to public
> init?(latitude: Double, longitude: Double) {
> guard validate(latitude: latitude, longitude: longitude) else { return nil
> }
> …
> }
> }
> internal extension Coordinate {
> /// Convenience initialiser to me used internally within the module.
> init(coordinate: CLLocationCoordinate2D) {
> …
> }
> }
> private extension Coordinate {
> /// Private validation of the coordinate.
> func validate(latitude: Double, longitude: Double) -> Bool {
> …
> }
> }
> ```
>
> This is legible and intuitive. The current behaviour is not.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170929/d32d69ce/attachment.html>