On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Patrick Pijnappel via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution at swift.org
<https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>> wrote:
> The only question is (as Sean mentioned) how this combines with the syntax
> for setter access level, e.g. the current private(set). Options:
> - Unnamed 2nd argument, giving private(file), private(file, set),
> private(set).
> - Named 2nd argument, giving e.g. private(file), private(file, accessor:
> set), private(accessor: set). Less ambiguity but longer.
> - Not using multiple arguments, but that'd probably break consistency with
> the other unification efforts going on to make everything look like
> function calls.
What about the following 3 forms?
private(file) //both setter and getter have file scope
private(set: file) //setter has file scope. Equivalent to current
“private(set)"
private(get: module, set: file) //getter has module scope & setter has file
scope
It is a bit weird, but we should probably also allow “public" in that last
form: private(get: public, set: module)
Thanks,
Jon
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
