On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Xiaodi Wu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Johnson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> 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]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution < >>> [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). >> > > Right, I think both would be OK. More radically, we might want to > re-evaluate the continued utility of a `fileprivate` scope. It seems the > use cases for such a scope not adequately served by either `internal` or > the new `private` would be exceedingly rare. > > > I disagree with that. `fileprivate` is indispensable when you need it. > There are times when you want to keep visibility limited to the current > file but the new `private` is too restrictive (for example, you need to > access a member of one type in a closely related extension of a different > type that lives in the same file). > Sure. This was more of a thought for the future. As we move towards fully embracing a scope-based model for organizing code, modules will no longer need to be strictly "single units of code distribution," and a move towards supporting submodules could serve your use case without `fileprivate`. That, IMO, would be a logical endpoint of moving from file-based access to scope-based access. > > >> -Matthew >> >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Adrian Zubarev >>> Sent with Airmail >>> >>> Am 15. Juni 2016 um 21:40:37, Matthew Johnson ([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] >>> 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
