public internal interfile private still googleable and very clear its scope and meaning, nice latin root. Doesn’t overload “private”, slightly shorter.
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Thorsten Seitz via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looks good to me. > > -Thorsten > >> Am 31.03.2016 um 06:22 schrieb Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]>: >> >>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 10:13 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: >>> How about we continue this trend, and follow other existing Swift keywords >>> that merge two lowercase words (associatedtype, typealias, etc), and use: >>> >>> public >>> moduleprivate >>> fileprivate >>> private >>> >>> The advantages, as I see them are: >>> 1) We keep public and private meaning the “right” and “obvious” things. >>> 2) The declmodifiers “read” correctly. >>> 3) The unusual ones (moduleprivate and fileprivate) don’t use the awkward >>> parenthesized keyword approach. >>> 4) The unusual ones would be “googable”. >>> 5) Support for named submodules could be “dropped in” by putting the >>> submodule name/path in parens: private(foo.bar.baz) or >>> moduleprivate(foo.bar). Putting an identifier in the parens is much more >>> natural than putting keywords in parens. >> >> I’ve seen a number of concerns on this list about moduleprivate, and how it >> penalizes folks who want to explicitly write their access control. I’ve >> come to think that there is yes-another possible path forward here (which I >> haven’t seen mentioned so far): >> >> public >> internal >> fileprivate >> private >> >> The advantages, as I see them are: >> 1) We keep public and private meaning the “right” and “obvious” things. >> 2) The declmodifiers “read” correctly. >> 3) Compared to Swift 2, there is almost no change. The only thing that >> changes is that some uses of Swift 2 “private” will be migrated to >> “fileprivate”, which makes the intent of the code much more clear. >> 4) fileprivate is the unusual and not-really-precedented-in-other-languages >> modifier, and it would still be “googable”. >> 5) The addresses the “excessively long” declmodifier problem that several >> people are concerned with. >> 6) Support for named submodules could be “dropped in” by parameterizing >> “internal”. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -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
