I, too, prefer it to be more like this: public // unchanged module // currently internal internal // currently private private // new hotness
l8r Sean > On Mar 14, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Jo Albright via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 > > I like this a lot. Name ideas : enclosed, filelocal, fileonly, filelock, > fileaccess, fileprivate, insidefile, inner. I also like Erica’s filebound & > file fixed. > > By Erica’s suggestion about switching… > > - public > - modular, modulelock, packaged (module only) > - internal (file only) > - private > > Designer . Developer . Nerd > Jo Albright > > >> On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:18 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Per Doug’s email, the core team agrees we should make a change here, but >> would like some bikeshedding to happen on the replacement name for private. >> >> To summarize the place we’d like to end up: >> >> - “public” -> symbol visible outside the current module. >> - “internal” -> symbol visible within the current module. >> - unknown -> symbol visible within the current file. >> - “private” -> symbol visible within the current declaration (class, >> extension, etc). >> >> The rationale here is that this aligns Swift with common art seen in other >> languages, and that many people using private today don’t *want* visibility >> out of their current declaration. It also encourages “extension oriented >> programming”, at least it will when some of the other restrictions on >> extensions are lifted. We discussed dropping the third one entirely, but >> think it *is* a useful and important level of access control, and when/if we >> ever get the ability to write unit tests inside of the file that defines the >> functionality, they will be a nicer solution to @testable. >> >> The thing we need to know is what the spelling should be for the third one. >> Off hand, perhaps: >> >> fileprivate >> private(file) >> internal(file) >> fileaccessible >> etc >> >> Some other thoughts on the choice: >> - this will be a declaration modifier, so it will not “burn” a keyword. >> - if will be a uniquely Swift thing, so there is virtue in it being a >> googlable keyword. >> >> Thoughts appreciated. >> >> -Chris >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
