<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 4 Apr 2017, at 01:01, David Waite via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8">Soft -1 for four reasons:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. I would expect private to be used to hide implementation details and type invariants from all code, to encapsulate and protect the unsafe bits. Think the possibility to put the instance into an illegal state, or to modify its state outside of its defined threading model. Why would an extension be trusted to do this? This smacks of a ‘protected’ mode for extensions.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not everybody would hate that ;), but seriously it seemed a strong request in all our discussions about this and it comes at a very small cost.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2. This makes the model more confusing, and increases overlap with file private. It seems this is here just to appease the people who think “fileprivate” is an ugly wart, while not having time to formulate a strategy to eliminate file private. The real issue is that there isn’t a level between fileprivate and internal.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">3. This seems to make the issue of large files even worse, by encouraging the use of ‘private’ as a way of exposing an extension-specific API of a type that is only accessible by putting extensions in the same file</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">4. From discussions on migration, I believe we can leave the option open of widening private later as part of a tasked redesign of access control after Swift 4.0. I’d prefer to not widen private before we have evaluated access control as a whole, as I believe private as it is today is the lowest, most restrictive-but-usable level of access control.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am not sure this kind of change will easily happen for Swift 5, I say let's not waste this chance.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-DW</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 3, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Douglas Gregor 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=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello Swift Community,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In rejecting <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0159-fix-private-access-levels.md" class="">SE-0159</a>, the core team described a potential direction we would like to investigate for “private” access control that admits a limited form of type-based access control within files. The core team is seeking some discussion here and a motivated volunteer to put together a proposal along these lines for review in the Swift 4 time-frame (i.e., very soon). To be clear, the core team it’s sure this is the right direction to go… but it appears promising and we would *love* to be able to settle the access-control issue.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The design, specifically, is that a “private” member declared within a type “X” or an extension thereof would be accessible from:</div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>* An extension of “X” in the same file</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>* The definition of “X”, if it occurs in the same file</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>* A nested type (or extension thereof) of one of the above that occurs in the same file</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This design has a number of apparent benefits:</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>+ “private” becomes the right default for “less than whole module” visibility, and aligns well with Swift coding style that divides a type’s definition into a number of extensions.</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>+ “fileprivate” remains for existing use cases, but now it’s use it more rare, which has several advantages:</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>+ It fits well with the "progressive disclosure” philosophy behind Swift: you can use public/internal/private for a while before encountering and having to learn about “fileprivate” (note: we thought this was going to be true of <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md" class="">SE-0025</a>, but we were clearly wrong)</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>+ When “fileprivate” occurs, it means there’s some interesting coupling between different types in the same file. That makes fileprivate a useful alert to the reader rather than, potentially, something that we routinely use and overlook so that we can separate implementations into extensions.</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>+ “private” is more closely aligned with other programming languages that use type-based access control, which can help programmers just coming to Swift. When they reach for “private”, they’re likely to get something similar to what they expect—with a little Swift twist due to Swift’s heavy use of extensions.</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>+ Loosening the access restrictions on “private” is unlikely to break existing code.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There are likely some drawbacks:</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Developers using patterns that depend on the existing lexically-scoped access control of “private” may find this new interpretation of “private” to be insufficiently strict</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Swift’s access control would go from “entirely lexical” to “partly lexical and partly type-based”, which can be viewed as being more complicated</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="">Thoughts? Volunteer?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Doug</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=""><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>swift-evolution mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>