SE-0025: Scoped Access Level, next steps


Now we only need to add submodule and protected ;-)



Am 15. März 2016 um 14:58 schrieb Zach Waldowski via swift-evolution

I, too, prefer it to be more like this:

public // unchanged
module // currently internal
internal // currently private
private // new hotness


On Mar 14, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Jo Albright via swift-evolution wrote:


I like this a lot. Name ideas : enclosed, filelocal, fileonly, filelock, fileaccess, fileprivate, insidefile, inner. I also like Erica’s filebound & file fixed.

By Erica’s suggestion about switching…

  • public
  • modular, modulelock, packaged (module only)
  • internal (file only)
  • private

Designer . Developer .  Nerd
Jo Albright

On Mar 14, 2016, at 8:18 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution wrote:

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:


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.


swift-evolution mailing list

swift-evolution mailing list

swift-evolution mailing list
I'm in favor of this too. Parameterizing the private syntax is nice, but
it introduces complications elsewhere. We should come up with a new
word, module seems good to me.

Zachary Waldowski

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016, at 10:38 PM, Sean Heber via swift-evolution wrote:

swift-evolution mailing list