I can’t find a reply that seemed to cover this so I’d like to ask again, but
why just you a parameter on private for all hidden visibility types? i.e-
public (current meaning of public)
private (module) (current meaning of internal)
private (type) (new scoped visibility, could be named scoped
instead but I prefer type personally)
private (file) (current meaning of private)
This eliminates the need for an additional keyword, and actually trims internal
as well, plus all visibility is then either public (externally accessible) or
private (internally accessible with some degree of restriction). When used
without a parameter private on its own would now default to private (type).
The ability to place a visibility restriction only upon a getter/setter would
be handled as a parameter value, for example:
private (file: set) (value can only be set within
this file)
private (type: get, file: set) (value is accessible within type,
sub-types and extensions, but can only be set within this file)
I think it’s a very neat way to do things, and I think that for most cases
private (type), the new default for private, is sufficient for a lot of
use-cases. More importantly it eliminates the need for new keywords, actually
trims one (we only need two for visibility not four) and also eliminates the
need to find good single-word keywords that make sense on their own, since all
limited types are explicitly grouped as private which should make it absolutely
clear.
> On 26 Mar 2016, at 07:14, Cheyo Ximenez via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I agree with Ross. Swift already redefined the common access modifiers
> meanings.
> Why not use the word 'protected' to mean 'local'?
>
> public
> internal
> private
> protected // Java got it wrong. :) This is "protected" against extensions.
>
> On Mar 25, 2016, at 6:57 PM, Ross O'Brien via swift-evolution
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>> The specific meaning of 'public' and 'private' in programming languages
>> refers to type-based symbol visibility. I'm thinking of C++, C#, Java and
>> Objective C; their 'public' is Swift's 'internal'. They have no equivalent
>> to Swift's 'public'. Swift has no equivalent to their 'private'.
>>
>> Possibly my familiarity with other languages isn't broad enough, but this is
>> why I haven't understood the idea that Swift's use of 'private' is "right"
>> or "obvious". You learn Swift's meanings of these terms by coding in Swift,
>> you don't learn these meanings anywhere else first.
>>
>> To use a hopefully recognised example: an American who wants 'chips' wants
>> what a Brit calls crisps; a Brit who wants chips wants what an American
>> calls french fries. Which meaning of 'chips' is more intuitive? Answer: the
>> one you grew up with.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> > all of these names (public, internal, private, local) have specific
>> > meaning in the context of computer languages.
>>
>> Yes, `local` has a meaning, but that meaning is generally *not* that it's an
>> access level. It usually has something to do with declaring variables inside
>> a function.
>>
>> For instance, Perl uses it to back up and restore a global variable. ML uses
>> it to create a scope (roughly). Lua and Julia use it to declare lexical
>> variables which are visible in enclosed scopes, which SE-0025's new access
>> level is specifically *not* supposed to allow.
>>
>> I don't know of any language where `local` is used as an access level. If
>> you're aware of an analogous use in another language, I'd be interested to
>> see it. But the examples I've found if anything *undermine* the suggestion
>> that `local` would be a good keyword choice.
>>
>> --
>> Brent Royal-Gordon
>> Architechies
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> <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
