public internal (fileprivate | interfile) private Either choice is fine with me
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jesse Squires via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote: > I really like this. +1 for the following: > > public > internal > fileprivate > private > > -Jesse > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Jesse Squires > > *blog* | jessesquires.com <http://www.jessesquires.com> > *github* | github.com/jessesquires <http://www.github.com/jessesquires> > *hexedbits* | hexedbits.com <http://www.hexedbits.com> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
