SE-0025: Scoped Access Level, next steps


(Thorsten Seitz) #1

Actually I thought “local” wasn’t a bad choice because the concept of “local scope” is well established (e.g. local variables) and means the enclosing scope which would be a perfect match, wouldn’t it?

-Thorsten

···

Am 15. März 2016 um 01:19 schrieb Chris Lattner via swift-evolution swift-evolution@swift.org:

Per Doug’s email, the core team agrees we should make a change here, but would like some bikeshedding to happen on the replacement name for private.

To summarize the place we’d like to end up:

  • “public” -> symbol visible outside the current module.
  • “internal” -> symbol visible within the current module.
  • unknown -> symbol visible within the current file.
  • “private” -> symbol visible within the current declaration (class, extension, etc).

The rationale here is that this aligns Swift with common art seen in other languages, and that many people using private today don’t want visibility out of their current declaration. It also encourages “extension oriented programming”, at least it will when some of the other restrictions on extensions are lifted. We discussed dropping the third one entirely, but think it is a useful and important level of access control, and when/if we ever get the ability to write unit tests inside of the file that defines the functionality, they will be a nicer solution to @testable.

The thing we need to know is what the spelling should be for the third one. Off hand, perhaps:

fileprivate
private(file)
internal(file)
fileaccessible
etc

Some other thoughts on the choice:

  • this will be a declaration modifier, so it will not “burn” a keyword.
  • if will be a uniquely Swift thing, so there is virtue in it being a googlable keyword.

Thoughts appreciated.

-Chris


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