I like that very much. I like that all four access levels are described by single words, that they are adjectives, that they obviate the "private private" problem described by Jordan, and that their relative level ordering is (IMO) obvious by the usual meaning of the words.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <[email protected]> wrote: >> I honestly still think "public, internal, private, local" is a better >> taxonomy.. It's true that "internal" and "private" aren't automatically >> ordered relative to each other (and maybe not even "local"), but they're all >> adjectives (unlike "module" and "file"), and they're not awkward to read or >> to use in conversation. But both the core team and the list disagree, mainly >> because (a) it aligns 'private' more closely with other languages, and (b) >> if you're not thinking about it, more restrictive is better than less. (Both >> of which I agree are good ideas.) > > If we're not married to "private" being the most private access level, I > think there is a word that implies more privacy than "private": "secret". > Something that's private is often still shared with trusted people, but > something that's secret is very carefully protected indeed. "Three may keep a > secret, if two of them are dead." > > So then our four access levels would be: > > * public > * internal > * private > * secret > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > 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
