[Discussion] fileprivate vs. private(file)


(Joanna Carter) #1

Perhaps 'type' access is 'set' level unless explicitly exposed:
private(get: file, set: scope, type: module)

In a word - Yikes! Why on earth do access modifiers have to be sooo complicated?

I have written absolutely massive frameworks in C# with nothing but :

public - Access is not restricted.
protected - Access is limited to the containing class or types derived from the containing class.
internal - Access is limited to the current assembly.
protected internal - Access is limited to the current assembly or types derived from the containing class.
private - Access is limited to the containing type.

None of these levels are file-based and inexperienced developers coming onstream take very little time to understand what they mean and use them correctly.

I get the feeling some people are saying that Swift should not copy other languages because… well because it's Swift :frowning:

Then there's the extension to that, that access control should only be file-based. But, as I have already pointed out several times, this can very quickly lead to file bloat due to developers trying to gain privileged access to a type, but not being able to extend that type outside of the file.

This still seems a bit clunky to me if you have a public and a private on
the same line, but perhaps someone can suggest something for that.

But we already have such a syntax :

{
  public private(set) var name: String
  
  …
}

Clear, concise and easily read.

···

--
Joanna Carter
Carter Consulting