> Le 13 oct. 2016 à 07:52, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution 
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> a écrit :
> On Oct 12, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Russ Bishop via swift-evolution 
> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>> I actually consider it very lucky that most of our changes so far have 
>>>> been fairly non-controversial. Everybody has a different idea of what 
>>>> would make Swift a better language, and all of us well-meaning. But when 
>>>> those ideas conflict, some group is going to end up unhappy. I'm actually 
>>>> very glad that (a) we haven't had too many of these cases, and (b) even 
>>>> when we have, people have been able to accept it and move on to 
>>>> contributing to the next issue.
>>> Strong agreement here as well. This proposal has been litigated numerous 
>>> times already, and the bar for source-breaking changes is much higher now. 
>>> To effectively re-open the discussion would require a proposal that 
>>> significant changes the model with a lot of evidence that such a new model 
>>> is a drastic improvement over what we have now. “Back out SE-0025” is not a 
>>> viable option now.
>>>     - Doug
>> Not really. This proposal could be backed out without source-breaking 
>> changes by treating private as a synonym for fileprivate and we’d have Swift 
>> 2 behavior without breaking source. If the core team doesn’t want to 
>> consider that then we can just move on and live with it. 
> Not speaking for the core team, just MHO:
> I agree with Russ here, and with others who have said upthread that the 
> “thing that has changed” is that we are starting to get usage experience with 
> fileprivate vs private.  I think we all understand the value of having fewer 
> access control levels, and so if “private” isn’t conceptually pulling its 
> weight, then it is reasonable to consider phasing it out.
> That said, there is no specific rush to have this discussion, and I think it 
> is reasonable to put a pretty high burden of proof on someone who wants to 
> drive such a proposal.  For example, if we had the discussion in the spring 
> timeframe, we should have a pretty large body of Swift 3 code readily at hand 
> (e.g. SwiftPM packages and other various github repos).
> Given that, it should be easy enough to see how widely private is actually 
> being used in practice.  If it is very rare, then the argument to ditch it 
> (make it a synonym for fileprivate, and eventually phasing out fileprivate) 
> is strong.  If lots of people are using private and only some are using 
> fileprivate, then the discussion is quite different.
> -Chris

I don’t think monitoring the usage of private vs fileprivate is fair. By 
default, people will use private until they encounter visibility issues and 
discover they need to change to fileprivate. So private will probably being use 
far more than fileprivate.
Nonetheless it does not mean people chosen private because it effectively 
reduce the visibility to the class scope, but just because it is easier to 
discover and to type than fileprivate and fit in many cases.

I tend to write class will all ivars private by default (as it is a sensible 
default), and then, when I start to write extensions and other parts, I have to 
switch to fileprivate for a bunch of ivars. It create an inconsistent mess in 
my ivars declaration as it is difficult to know if an ivar is private because I 
has to be, or because I didn’t encounter a case that need it to be fileprivate 

Honestly, I don’t see any value in the introduction of fileprivate.

swift-evolution mailing list
              • Re: ... T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Zach Waldowski via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Trans via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Braeden Profile via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... David Hart via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... David Waite via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Russ Bishop via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Jean-Daniel via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... David Hart via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Daniel Duan via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Hooman Mehr via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Rien via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Daniel Duan via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Kevin Ballard via swift-evolution
              • Re: ... Charles Srstka via swift-evolution
  • Re: [swift-evolution] private ... Chris Lattner via swift-evolution

Reply via email to