default struct initializer internal even if class declared public


(Dave Reed) #1

I’m teaching an iOS with Swift this semester and one of my students pointed out that:

struct Person {
   var firstName: String
   var lastName: String
}

does create a default initializer that you can call as:
p = Person(firstName: “Dave”, lastName: “Reed”)

but if you write:

public struct Person {
   var firstName: String
   var lastName: String
}

The default initializer is still internal so if you want it to be public, you have to write it yourself (i.e.)

public struct Person {
   var firstName: String
   var lastName: String

   public init(firstName: String, lastName: String) {
      self.firstName = firstName
      self.lastName = lastName
   }
}

Is there a way around this (other than writing it)? We both agree it would be reasonable/nice that the default initializer have the same protection level as the struct itself.

Thanks,
Dave Reed


(Kevin Nattinger) #2

I ran into this issue not half an hour ago; I would also prefer the default initializer to default to the entity’s access level, or at least have some simple way of opting in.

···

On Jan 18, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Dave Reed via swift-users <swift-users@swift.org> wrote:

I’m teaching an iOS with Swift this semester and one of my students pointed out that:

struct Person {
  var firstName: String
  var lastName: String
}

does create a default initializer that you can call as:
p = Person(firstName: “Dave”, lastName: “Reed”)

but if you write:

public struct Person {
  var firstName: String
  var lastName: String
}

The default initializer is still internal so if you want it to be public, you have to write it yourself (i.e.)

public struct Person {
  var firstName: String
  var lastName: String

  public init(firstName: String, lastName: String) {
     self.firstName = firstName
     self.lastName = lastName
  }
}

Is there a way around this (other than writing it)? We both agree it would be reasonable/nice that the default initializer have the same protection level as the struct itself.

Thanks,
Dave Reed

_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users


(Adrian Zubarev) #3

I feel like I’ve seen this discussion somewhere on the mailing list before. If I remember correctly or it could be only me, this behavior is by design, because you don’t want to open your API implicitly to everyone. Internally it won’t hurt your module, but only allow you to write less code and use the type right away.

It might be your intention of using this init(firstName:lastName) only internally, but disallow the module user from being able to construct that type manually. (The current behavior.)

Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here :wink:

···

--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 18. Januar 2017 um 16:33:22, Dave Reed via swift-users (swift-users@swift.org) schrieb:

I’m teaching an iOS with Swift this semester and one of my students pointed out that:

struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}

does create a default initializer that you can call as:
p = Person(firstName: “Dave”, lastName: “Reed”)

but if you write:

public struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}

The default initializer is still internal so if you want it to be public, you have to write it yourself (i.e.)

public struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String

public init(firstName: String, lastName: String) {
self.firstName = firstName
self.lastName = lastName
}
}

Is there a way around this (other than writing it)? We both agree it would be reasonable/nice that the default initializer have the same protection level as the struct itself.

Thanks,
Dave Reed

_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users


(Shawn Erickson) #4

Yeah I am fairly sure that is by design. A lot of swifts access controls
are about getting you up and going with little work / boilerplate while
internal to your model while requiring you to be explicit about what you
want to expose publicly outside of your module.

···

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:40 AM Adrian Zubarev via swift-users < swift-users@swift.org> wrote:

I feel like I’ve seen this discussion somewhere on the mailing list before.
If I remember correctly or it could be only me, this behavior is by design,
because you don’t want to open your API implicitly to everyone. Internally
it won’t hurt your module, but only allow you to write less code and use
the type right away.

It might be your intention of using this init(firstName:lastName) only
internally, but disallow the module user from being able to construct that
type manually. (The current behavior.)

Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here :wink:

--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 18. Januar 2017 um 16:33:22, Dave Reed via swift-users (
swift-users@swift.org) schrieb:

I’m teaching an iOS with Swift this semester and one of my students pointed
out that:

struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}

does create a default initializer that you can call as:
p = Person(firstName: “Dave”, lastName: “Reed”)

but if you write:

public struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}

The default initializer is still internal so if you want it to be public,
you have to write it yourself (i.e.)

public struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String

public init(firstName: String, lastName: String) {
self.firstName = firstName
self.lastName = lastName
}
}

Is there a way around this (other than writing it)? We both agree it would
be reasonable/nice that the default initializer have the same protection
level as the struct itself.

Thanks,
Dave Reed

_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users

_______________________________________________

swift-users mailing list

swift-users@swift.org

https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users


(Adrian Zubarev) #5

PS: If we’re talking about iOS here than public and open makes less sense as long as you’re not writing a framework for iOS. Each type that is considered to be used in other projects can be seen as an own module, only then access modifiers like public or open makes some sense again. :wink:

···

--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 18. Januar 2017 um 17:45:10, Shawn Erickson (shawnce@gmail.com) schrieb:

Yeah I am fairly sure that is by design. A lot of swifts access controls are about getting you up and going with little work / boilerplate while internal to your model while requiring you to be explicit about what you want to expose publicly outside of your module.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:40 AM Adrian Zubarev via swift-users <swift-users@swift.org> wrote:
I feel like I’ve seen this discussion somewhere on the mailing list before. If I remember correctly or it could be only me, this behavior is by design, because you don’t want to open your API implicitly to everyone. Internally it won’t hurt your module, but only allow you to write less code and use the type right away.

It might be your intention of using this init(firstName:lastName) only internally, but disallow the module user from being able to construct that type manually. (The current behavior.)

Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here :wink:

--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 18. Januar 2017 um 16:33:22, Dave Reed via swift-users (swift-users@swift.org) schrieb:

I’m teaching an iOS with Swift this semester and one of my students pointed out that:

struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}

does create a default initializer that you can call as:
p = Person(firstName: “Dave”, lastName: “Reed”)

but if you write:

public struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String
}

The default initializer is still internal so if you want it to be public, you have to write it yourself (i.e.)

public struct Person {
var firstName: String
var lastName: String

public init(firstName: String, lastName: String) {
self.firstName = firstName
self.lastName = lastName
}
}

Is there a way around this (other than writing it)? We both agree it would be reasonable/nice that the default initializer have the same protection level as the struct itself.

Thanks,
Dave Reed

_______________________________________________
swift-users mailing list
swift-users@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
_______________________________________________

swift-users mailing list

swift-users@swift.org

https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users