On 17.02.2017 11:29, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution wrote:
On Feb 17, 2017, at 12:09 AM, Charlie Monroe via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
True, what I meant was a wider feedback - let's face it, there are many
more Swift developers now than 2 years ago.
My objection is not to the documentation itself, but to the fact that I'm
unnecessarily exposing an internal implementation detail to the rest of
the module. Being able to hide it from the rest IMHO leads to better
though-through API that is indeed meant to be exposed; whereas exposing
internal details leads to allowing various quick hacks instead. We know
these quick hacks very well from the ObjC world by accessing private
parts of the object via duck typing or setting values via KVO.
At least this is my experience with which the less implementation details
are exposed to the outer world, the better.
I think the fundamental disagreement we’re seeing in this thread is the
meaning of “outer world”; to some, it means “users of your module”. To
others, it also means “other developers on my team who are working on other
files in the module”.
Personally I feel enforced encapsulation of implementation detail to the
latter group is less important than the former, and can be handled by
convention. Whereas other users of your module definitely benefit from
access control and being able to consume a clearly-defined interface.
I assume we are discussing access modifiers mainly for the former group,
i.e. when we are "inside" the module (even when this module is written by
the same one person, and especially when it is written by the group).
"handled by convention" - are we talking about something like declaring
props and methods as __privateprop , m_privateprop etc and write comments
to mark that they should not be used outside of some scope? Is it really
Swifty and acceptable for the modern language? Will this help to prevent
some mistakes with incorrect access? Is it better than simple and clean
schema for access modifiers and compiler's help? I don't understand this.
IMO, access modifiers is very known and handy abstraction to distinct
levels of access and to structure code many developers knows about and use
in other languages.
At the end, if one wants to keep all internal - no problems!, you can do
this right now, just don't use fileprivate/private/etc.
Yes, I agree we need a simple and clean schema, not over-complicated, we
need nice&clean keywords, we need a required minimum of access modifiers,
not more, and I do believe currently we don't have this minimum.
Was already suggested, trying again(I do believe this could be a
compromised solution to suit needs of the main part of developers):
* (as currently) public/open -> outside of the module
* (as currently) internal -> inside module
* private -> inside file (instead of fileprivate)
* protected(or *other* keyword) -> inside file + subtype&extensions in the
*same module*
What objections could be made for this?
Thank you.
Slava
On Feb 17, 2017, at 8:54 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com
<mailto:xiaodi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
That blog post starts out right away to say that it's a response to
community feedback. Moreover, the scenario you describe was just as
possible in 2014 as it is now. Finally, then as now, it's unclear why
you consider documentation to be "not pretty." After all, your reader
would need to consult the documentation before using a variable anyway.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:04 Charlie Monroe via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
I'm aware of this, but that's fairly a long time ago - before Swift
was open source and had community feedback and before Swift was used
widely among developers.
To me, real-world use of the language has shown some flaws of
missing a protected access control, mainly having to decide between
having a variable internal or cramming all of the class extension
into one file, making it a 3KLOC mess. Either solution is not pretty
- now I have it split among several files with an internal variable
commented as "Do not use, for private use of this class only."
On Feb 17, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Jose Cheyo Jimenez
<ch...@masters3d.com <mailto:ch...@masters3d.com>> wrote:
https://developer.apple.com/swift/blog/?id=11
On Feb 16, 2017, at 10:05 PM, Charlie Monroe via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
How about removing fileprivate, getting Swift 2 meaning of private
(as most people here now suggest) and add additional @protected
annotation for those who want a more fine-grained solution:
@protected private - members accessable only from the
class/struct/enum/... and their extensions within the file
@protected internal - again, but you can access it even from
extensions and subclasses outside of the file within the entire
module.
@protected public/open - the same as above, but outside the modules.
To me, this way most people here will be happy:
- those wishing the access control gets simplified - it in fact
does, you don't need to use @protected, if you don't want to/need to.
- those who need a fine-grained solution, here it is.
On Feb 17, 2017, at 3:49 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 16, 2017, at 8:36 PM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>
wrote:
On Feb 16, 2017, at 14:34, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution
<swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>
wrote:
While we’re bikeshedding, I’m going to add my two cents. Hold
on to your hat because this might be controversial here.
I think both ‘private’ and ‘fileprivate’ are unnecessary
complications that only serve to clutter the language.
It would make a lot more sense to just have internal and public
only. No private, no fileprivate, no lineprivate, no protected.
It’s all silly.
Eh, I've used `private` to keep myself honest in terms of going
through some book-keeping functions instead of directly
accessing a property.
This is exactly the kind of thing I like it for and why I hope we
might be able to keep scoped access even if it gets a new name
that ends up as awkward as fileprivate (allowing private to
revert to the Swift 2 meaning).
- Dave Sweeris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto: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
