[swift-evolution] classprivate protection level?

[Adam Kemp]

> On Oct 30, 2017, at 5:34 AM, Mike Kluev <mike.kluev at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 30 October 2017 at 07:30, Adam Kemp <adam.kemp at apple.com <mailto:adam.kemp at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> No. There are two reasonable options:
> 
> 1. Make it public. If it’s needed outside the module then this is an accurate description of its access level. 
> 
> 2. Make it internal and accept that any code in the same module can access it. Again, that is effectively what your proposed scope allows anyway so internal is an accurate description of its actual access level. Call it what it is.
> 
> 
> Adam, i fail to see why you say "No" to "one module per class approach" if the goal is to make the individual multi-file classes as isolated as possible (i.e. not see each other "internal" stuff). which (this goal) is considered the "way to go" approach in other languages and the "default" behaviour.

I didn’t mean “no, you can’t do that”. You can if you want to. What I meant was “no, I’m not suggesting that you should do that”. I don’t think it’s necessary.

Which other language has an access level like the one being proposed?

> 
> this:
> 
> SingleFileClass1.swift // with bunch of "privates" inside
> 
> SingleFileClass2.swift // with bunch of "privates" inside
> 
> SingleFileClass3.swift // with bunch of "privates" inside
> 
> is equivalent to this:
> 
> Module solely for Class1
>    Class1.swift // with bunch of "internals inside
>    Class1+Extension.swift // with bunch of "internals" inside
>    
> Module solely for Class2
>    Class2.swift // with bunch of "internals" inside
>    Class2+Extension.swift // with bunch of "internals" inside  
> 
> Module solely for Class3
>    Class3.swift  // with bunch of "internals" inside
>    Class3+Extension.swift // with bunch of "internals" inside
>    
> 
> still "no" ?
> 
> i mean, it's fine (although a bit odd) that a mere change from a single-file to a multi-file class leads to such drastic consequences. different to what i saw before. but I can adapt of course.
> 
> Either way the answer is basically the same: don’t obfuscate the effective access level and pretend you’re being strict when you’re really not. It’s like putting a lock on the door with the key hanging from the doorknob. You may as well just keep it unlocked. 
> 
> 
> nice analogy :-)
> 
> Mike
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20171030/3aa86f13/attachment.html>