After reading the discussions it seems to me that renaming private -> scoped and fileprivate -> private might keep both sides happy.
> On Mar 24, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 24.03.2017 11:47, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution wrote: >> Nevin had a fantastic proposal for submodules which changed private to mean >> “private to the submodule”, where each file was implicitly a submodule >> unless you declared otherwise. Simple and elegant. > > Currently I don't see how submodules can eliminate the needs of > 'scoped'(current 'private') access level. Even in submodule (even if > submodule will be a "namespace" line feature like "submodule Name{..}" and we > can have number of such declarations in the same file) - 'scoped' access is > valuable even for single type declaration. Probably I don't understand > something. > > But as for fileprivate - it is really logically to have it named 'private' > and it can naturally be used in submodules as "private to submodule" just > like "private to file" currently. > > So I do think the right move currently is to rename fileprivate->private, > private->scoped and then, when(if!) we have submodules - we can change > something. > Rename will remove the huge confusion users(especially novice) have with > 'fileprivate' vs 'private'; experience shows that *actually* programmers use > 'fileprivate' a lot and this is some kind of Swift/iOs programming style, and > fileprivate is awkward keyword, and many(all? ;-) just want 'private' means > "in this file". > Also novice programmer can know just about 'public', 'internal' and 'private' > - these three logically united access modifiers,all are file-scoped, but more > experienced programmer has no problems teach what 'scoped' means and why one > want to use it. > >> >> >>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:27 PM, Drew Crawford via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> On Mar 23, 2017, at 6:41 PM, David Hart <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> I have difficulties imagining a submodule proposal that could allow us >>>> to eliminate fileprivate. Care to give an example? >>> >>> The obvious example would be Rust. Rust has exactly two visibilities, >>> and merely one keyword. By default, members are "private" which is >>> visible inside the module (so, like Swift's internal). The "public" >>> keyword is similar to Swift. >>> >>> The reason this works is that unlike in Swift where a module is something >>> like a library or framework (Rust calls those "crates"), in Rust modules >>> in are (explicitly) lexically scoped; a "mod myscope {}" module can be >>> created for the portion of the file for which the member should be >>> visible and it won't be visible outside that scope. Likewise, >>> "fileprivate" can be achieved by enclosing the file in a "mod MyFile {}". >>> And like all lexical scopes, they can be recursively nested to arbitrary >>> depth to achieve any number of visibility behaviors (e.g., declare a >>> module for the first half of two files) that would require complex new >>> keywords to achieve in Swift. Finally there are some shortcut features >>> like the ability to infer a module structure from the file system. >>> >>> >>> >>> In Swift, modules are presently tied to libraries/frameworks in a 1:1 >>> way. Because of this we lack the flexibility of recursively nestable >>> modules of other languages and this is the underlying problem that >>> motivates both scoped/private and fileprivate. If we fixed that, we >>> would actually not need either keyword. >>> >>> http://rustbyexample.com/mod/visibility.html >>> https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/crates-and-modules.html >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[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 _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
