Hi All,
I’ve been following the access control discussion a little and I had an
idea that I wanted to throw out here. I know it’s too late and the idea
doesn’t provide source compatibility, but it seemed worthwhile to post it
anyway. My apologies if something similar has already been proposed.
First of all, I propose to use a trailing colon ‘:’ to make it clear that
it’s an access control keyword. Secondly, the idea introduces new keywords
that clearly describe the scope of access:
scope: (formerly private)
file: (formerly fileprivate)
module: (formerly internal, default)
extern: (formerly public)
extern(open): (formerly open)
Examples:
1. extern: class SomePublicClass { // explicitly public class
2. extern: var somePublicProperty = 0 // explicitly public class member
3. var someInternalProperty = 0 // implicitly internal class member
4. file: func someFilePrivateMethod() {} // explicitly file-private
class member
5. scope: func somePrivateMethod() {} // explicitly private class member
6. }
1. extern(open): class SomeOpenClass { // explicitly open class
2.
1. extern(open): func someOpenMethod() {} // explicitly open class member
2. }
Having the keyword describe the access scope actually fits the access
control model of Swift very well. The user doesn’t have to learn what
public or private means, but only needs to know the concept. Especially
coming from another programming language I think public and private are
confusing and breaking with it will signal very clearly that the Swift
model is different.
The idea is source breaking, but it’s very easy to deprecate the current
syntax with a warning and automatically migrate, because:
- All keywords are redefined, so there can be no confusion with the
current syntax.
- Only redefines the syntax, not the semantics.
Funny thing, I thought of this last night and when I woke up this morning I
read Erica’s proposal that uses many of the same keywords, although in a
different way. Telepathy? Or maybe we’re just onto something here?
I know this will turn everything upside down, but I like the overall
consistency, so I just wanted to throw it into the group as the next idea
to fix access controls and see if anyone likes it.
Alternatives considered:
- ‘all’ instead of ‘extern’. This sounds to me as if it can always be
accessed from everywhere, which might not be what we want if we introduce
submodules.
Regards,
Manolo