<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 12, 2017, at 10:14 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">FWIW, you're not the first to propose these names. `public(open)` was suggested during the `open` debate and rejected in favor of `open`. `private(file)` was suggested during the `fileprivate` debate and rejected in favor of `fileprivate`. `protected` and `abstract` have been suggested on this list multiple times.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Yes, these proposals are not going to happen IMO. I don’t speak for the core team, but we should be aiming to *reduce* complexity in the access control space (even at the cost of expressivity) — not increase it.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>-Chris</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Vanderlei Martinelli via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">Some corrections and additions to my previous email:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><font face="monospace, monospace" class=""><span style="font-size:12.800000190734863px" class="">public(open) // if open is absent, the method is “closed”</span></font></div><span class=""><div style="font-size:12.800000190734863px" class=""><font face="monospace, monospace" class="">protected // (yes, we and Cocoa still use classes)</font></div><div style="font-size:12.800000190734863px" class=""><font face="monospace, monospace" class="">internal</font></div></span><div class=""><font face="monospace, monospace" class=""><span style="font-size:12.800000190734863px" class="">private(file) // if file is absent, the method is really, really private</span></font></div></div><div class="">And one observation: <font face="monospace, monospace" class="">protected</font> and <font face="monospace, monospace" class="">abstract</font> as described before: only to be valid for classes, of course. Something like <font face="monospace, monospace" class="">local</font><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class=""> access modifier for local only scope would be nice too (and does not break anything written until today).</font></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">—</div><div class="">Vanderlei Martinelli</div></div>
<br class="">______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br class="">
swift-evolution mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.swift.org/<wbr class="">mailman/listinfo/swift-<wbr class="">evolution</a><br class="">
<br class=""></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>