Le 25 mars 2016 à 12:57, Tino Heth via swift-evolution
<[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> afaics this is the third time someone mentions that "file-private" is
> uncommon — so I think it's time someone dissents:
I'll do the same. There's many instances in my code where I rely on the
file-private behavior of Swift 2's private. Mostly this happens when I have a
pair of coupled classes that are meant to be used together and that need to
access internal details of each other. Most declarations can be scope-private
without problem, but it's not that uncommon for me to take advantage of
file-private.
There's another aspect that is bothering me about these long names. It seems
that everyone agrees that writing internal is a rare thing. Still, if you look
at generated headers in Xcode you'll see internal everywhere, like this:
internal class ItemDataModel {
internal var storage: ItemStorage { get set }
internal let fileType: String
required internal init(fileType: String, storage: ItemStorage = default)
}
Since internal is the default, it's quite common in generated headers.
"moduleprivate" wouldn't be an improvement for legibility here. But perhaps no
one but me looks at generated headers for my own project.
--
Michel Fortin
https://michelf.ca
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
