Em sex, 1 de abr de 2016 às 01:31, Ilya Belenkiy via swift-evolution < [email protected]> escreveu:
> With these names we lose consistency. The current scheme makes it very > clear that each next level is a subset of the previous level. With > "internal", fileprivate looks out of place. > > We have several goals for all the names: > 1) obvious > 2) using standard terms > 3) short > 4) consistent > > This discussion shows that we cannot have all of them. We have to pick > something at the expense of something else. > > For me, the order of importance is 2, 4, 1, 3, and I am pretty sure that > with this order > > public > moduleprivate > fileprivate > private > > is the best so far. > > public > internal > fileprivate > private > > is not as consistent. It's also not as obvious, given that many people > proposed to use internal to mean fileprivate. The biggest advantages of > these names are that there is less change and short words. If these are the > most important goals, then my original proposal is even better: > > public > internal > private > scoped > > For me this is good, keep untouched the actual public/internal/private and just add a new word for the new access level. It's a non-breaking change, everything retains its meaning, the added name > is very clear, and all the names are very short. The biggest problem here > is "private" -- it's not the most private that the language provides, and > most people would expect that. > > Here is another one like that (it solves the "private" problem at the > expense of using non-standard terms): > > public > internal > local > scoped > > My main point is that we cannot have everything. We have to pick the order > of importance. > > We heard many times that "short" is not the goal of Swift. Instead, it's > clarity. If this is the case, then I think > > public > moduleprivate > fileprivate > private > > is the clearest we've seen. Nobody could possibly be confused about the > meaning of these names. I doubt that moduleprivate will be required to > spell out in any style guide, but even so, it's not so bad. We have many > frequently used class names that are much longer. > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:22 AM 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
