[swift-evolution] classprivate protection level?
mike.kluev at gmail.com
Mon Oct 30 12:15:11 CDT 2017
sorry, hit "Sent" too early
On 30 October 2017 at 16:34, Adam Kemp <adam_kemp at apple.com> wrote:
> 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.
as you said before the benefit of keeping private things private is
minimizing the amount of code that can break once you change a variable. if
it's "internal" - the whole module must be checked. if it is "internal"
rather than "private":
- it is done because otherwise i'd have to keep the (big) class in a single
- shows the limitation in the language in regards to one-file-class vs
- forces me to use one module per file if I want to mimic the "private"
keyword as close as possible
- or forces me to keep my class in a single file.
> Which other language has an access level like the one being proposed?
i am not aware of such a language. C++'s "private" comes close as it can be
used in multiple files but then C++ doesn't have extensions. C++
"protected" comes close for something I can use in subclasses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution