If the overwhelming use case is that developers should pick one over the other primarily because it looks nicer, then blindly click the fix-it when things stop working, then the distinction between private and fileprivate is pretty clearly a mere nuisance that doesn't carry its own weight. On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 13:33 Jean-Daniel via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
> Le 12 févr. 2017 à 18:24, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> a écrit : > > On Feb 12, 2017, at 8:19 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > *Final* > Can someone tell me what is the use of 'final' now that we have 'public' > default to disallowing subclassing in importing modules? I know that > 'final' has the added constraint of disallowing subclassing in the same > module, but how useful is that? Does it hold its weight? Would we add it > now if it did not exist? > > > As Matthew says, this is still important. > > *Lazy* > This one is clearer: if Joe Groff's property behaviors proposal from last > year is brought forward again, lazy can be demoted from a language keyword > to a Standard Library property behavior. If Joe or anybody from the core > team sees this: do we have any luck of having this awesome feature we > discussed/designed/implemented in the Swift 4 timeframe? > > > Sadly, there is no chance to get property behaviors into Swift 4. > Hopefully Swift 5, but it’s impossible to say right now. > > *Fileprivate* > > I started the discussion early during the Swift 4 timeframe that I regret > the change in Swift 3 which introduced a scoped private keyword. For me, > it's not worth the increase in complexity in access modifiers. I was very > happy with the file-scope of Swift pre-3. When discussing that, Chris > Latner mentioned we'd have to wait for Phase 2 to re-discuss it and also > show proof that people mostly used 'fileprivate' and not the new 'private' > modifier as proof if we want the proposal to have any weight. Does anybody > have a good idea for compiling stats from GitHub on this subject? First of > all, I've always found the GitHub Search quite bad and don't know how much > it can be trusted. Secondly, because 'private' in Swift 2 and 3 have > different meanings, a simple textual search might get us wrong results if > we don't find a way to filter on Swift 3 code. > > > I would still like to re-evaluate fileprivate based on information in the > field. The theory of the SE-0025 ( > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md) > was that the fileprivate keyword would be used infrequently: this means > that it would uglify very little code and when it occurred, it would carry > meaning and significance. > > > Infrequent use and significance are orthogonal. > I still think developers would declare all ivars private (this is less > ugly and shorter), and then will happily convert them to fileprivate each > time the compiler will tell them they are not accessible somewhere else in > the file. > As the code that try to access that ivar is in the same file anyway, it > has full knowledge of the implementation details and there is no good > reason it shouldn’t be able to access the ivar when needed. > > We have a problem with evaluating that theory though: the Swift 2->3 > migrator mechanically changed all instances of private into fileprivate. > This uglified a ton of code unnecessarily and (even worse) lead programmers > to think they should use fileprivate everywhere. Because of this, it is > hard to look at a random Swift 3 codebase and determine whether SE-0025 is > working out as intended. > > The best way out of this that I can think of is to add a *warning* to the > Swift 3.1 or 4 compiler which detects uses of fileprivate that can be > tightened to “private” and provide a fixit to do the change. This would be > similar to how we suggest changing ‘var’ into ‘let’ where possible. Over > time, this would have the effect of getting us back to the world we > intended in SE-0025. > > -Chris > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
