> On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:55 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>wrote: > >> On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I was referencing to the issue Robert discovered in his implementation. >> >> I do understand what the proposal is all about, but thank you for >> re-clarifying that to me. :) >> >> > > I don’t think it’s a bug, but it is definitely something that isn’t as clear > as it should have been. > > Was it intentional on the part of the proposal, then, that there should be > two modifiers meaning the same thing for a top level declaration in a file? > Or was it intended that only one or the other be used in that scenario?
I don’t think it was carefully considered, although I think it did come up at some point during discussion in the context of compatibility with existing code (i.e. nothing changes for current top-level `private` declarations). It is in some sense a “coincidence” that they mean the same thing at file scope. The proposal would have had to introduce a specific prohibition to prevent this situation and it did not do so. That said, I think this kind of issue falls well within the discretion of the core team to make a call without violating the spirit of the proposal. There are two reasonable options here: 1. Allow both `private` and `fileprivate` at file scope despite the fact that they have the same meaning. This is more consistent in the sense that we are not introducing a special case that arbitrarily prohibits an otherwise valid access modifier. It also means that nothing needs to change for top level `private` declarations in existing code. 2. Prohibit `private` at file scope. Given that it appears as if the behavior of `private` at file scope may not be intuitive and is equivalent to `fileprivate` it might be reasonable to just disallow it. This would result in more consistent *code* (even if there needs to be a special case in the language). I don’t have a strong opinion on which option we choose. But I do feel strongly that the semantics of `private` need to properly respect the scope in which the keyword is written and into which the associated declaration is introduced (rather than the scope *inside* the declaration it is attached to). -Matthew >> >> >> >> -- >> Adrian Zubarev >> Sent with Airmail >> >> Am 15. Juni 2016 um 21:40:37, Matthew Johnson ([email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>) schrieb: >> >>> What seems like a nasty bug missed during review? I don’t follow you there. >>> >>> This proposal was specifically designed to follow Swift’s design of a >>> scope-based access control mechanism rather than a type-based access >>> control mechanism that is common in other languages. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
