Hi!
I’m somewhat new to swift, so this issue may have been covered.
I really like how I get a warning for variables I’ve declared, but have not mutated, or constants that I did not read.
What about warnings for anything not accessed outside its declared scope, encouraging the use of private, or fileprivate more often?
-Dave
So, to be clear, a warning about making internal variables more private based on their usage in the entire module?
Sounds doable. Probably wouldn't need to go through evolution to get it too (but I'll let others make that call). Please file an SR about this too.
~Robert Widmann
2017/01/25 3:25、Dave Kliman via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> のメッセージ:
Hi!
I’m somewhat new to swift, so this issue may have been covered.
I really like how I get a warning for variables I’ve declared, but have not mutated, or constants that I did not read.
What about warnings for anything not accessed outside its declared scope, encouraging the use of private, or fileprivate more often?
-Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
This is contrary to several deliberate design decisions, if I understand
correctly.
First, revisions to visibility rules in the Swift 3 timeline were made with
the deliberate intention that it should be possible to model greater
visibility within a type (e.g. public members) without actually exporting
that type. As Swift does not have optional warnings that can be turned off,
it would be incongruous if the language also warned users away from
creating internal types or variables before they are used. Unlike warnings
about unused variables within a scope, which are by definition local, a
warning such as proposed would be much more disruptive.
Second, a variable with no access modifier defaults to internal, and this
is deliberate for the purpose of progressive disclosure (i.e. it is, by
design, possible for a new user to write useful code separated across
multiple files without learning what access modifiers are). This would be
undone if nearly every such use prompted a warning.
In summary, I think the issue here is more one of style than safety, and
IMO is more within the scope of a linter.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:27 Robert Widmann via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
So, to be clear, a warning about making internal variables more private
based on their usage in the entire module?Sounds doable. Probably wouldn't need to go through evolution to get it
too (but I'll let others make that call). Please file an SR about this too.~Robert Widmann
2017/01/25 3:25、Dave Kliman via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org>
のメッセージ:Hi!
I’m somewhat new to swift, so this issue may have been covered.
I really like how I get a warning for variables I’ve declared, but have
not mutated, or constants that I did not read.What about warnings for anything not accessed outside its declared scope,
encouraging the use of *private*, or *fileprivate* more often?-Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
This seems best handled as a lint rule, probably filed under “pedantic”. It makes sense to apply to a project at certain milestones, but could be noisy during incremental development.
On Jan 25, 2017, at 12:25 AM, Dave Kliman via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Hi!
I’m somewhat new to swift, so this issue may have been covered.
I really like how I get a warning for variables I’ve declared, but have not mutated, or constants that I did not read.
What about warnings for anything not accessed outside its declared scope, encouraging the use of private, or fileprivate more often?
-Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
Saying it's about "migration" is disingenuous. The particular language in SE-0025 <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md> reads:
• The compiler should not warn when a broader level of access control is used within a type with more restrictive access, such as internal within a private type. This allows the designer of the type to select the access they would use were they to make the type more widely accessible. (The members still cannot be accessed outside the enclosing lexical scope because the type itself is still restricted, i.e. outside code will never encounter a value of that type.)
That is, this was a change made to support local design that happened to simplify the rules around access, particularly
• The default level of access control anywhere is internal.
So it still qualifies as "deliberate design".
Jordan
On Jan 25, 2017, at 14:34, Robert Widmann via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
Responding on the pro side, but I don't endorse this proposal without more details:
~Robert Widmann
2017/01/25 13:40、Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu@gmail.com <mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com>> のメッセージ:
This is contrary to several deliberate design decisions, if I understand correctly.
First, revisions to visibility rules in the Swift 3 timeline were made with the deliberate intention that it should be possible to model greater visibility within a type (e.g. public members) without actually exporting that type. As Swift does not have optional warnings that can be turned off, it would be incongruous if the language also warned users away from creating internal types or variables before they are used. Unlike warnings about unused variables within a scope, which are by definition local, a warning such as proposed would be much more disruptive.
That decision wasn't really one made to support a deliberate design, but to help make migration of fileprivate easier IIRC (Jordan Rose probably remembers better than I do of the conversation we had about this).
Responding on the pro side, but I don't endorse this proposal without more details:
~Robert Widmann
2017/01/25 13:40、Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu@gmail.com> のメッセージ:
This is contrary to several deliberate design decisions, if I understand correctly.
First, revisions to visibility rules in the Swift 3 timeline were made with the deliberate intention that it should be possible to model greater visibility within a type (e.g. public members) without actually exporting that type. As Swift does not have optional warnings that can be turned off, it would be incongruous if the language also warned users away from creating internal types or variables before they are used. Unlike warnings about unused variables within a scope, which are by definition local, a warning such as proposed would be much more disruptive.
That decision wasn't really one made to support a deliberate design, but to help make migration of fileprivate easier IIRC (Jordan Rose probably remembers better than I do of the conversation we had about this).
It's important to note we already provide module-wide warnings (namely if we detect you mutating a let-bound member we offer a fixit at the site of the member decl) so this isn't new.
Second, a variable with no access modifier defaults to internal, and this is deliberate for the purpose of progressive disclosure (i.e. it is, by design, possible for a new user to write useful code separated across multiple files without learning what access modifiers are). This would be undone if nearly every such use prompted a warning.
That enforces hiding from clients, OP wants to enforce a model where we enforce data hiding from yourself as well. If a variable's access needs to be escalated we can provide that fixit as well (instead of the current errors we offer now which are usually spurious type errors because lookup barfs).
In summary, I think the issue here is more one of style than safety, and IMO is more within the scope of a linter.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:27 Robert Widmann via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
So, to be clear, a warning about making internal variables more private based on their usage in the entire module?Sounds doable. Probably wouldn't need to go through evolution to get it too (but I'll let others make that call). Please file an SR about this too.
~Robert Widmann
2017/01/25 3:25、Dave Kliman via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> のメッセージ:
Hi!
I’m somewhat new to swift, so this issue may have been covered.
I really like how I get a warning for variables I’ve declared, but have not mutated, or constants that I did not read.
What about warnings for anything not accessed outside its declared scope, encouraging the use of private, or fileprivate more often?
-Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
Responding on the pro side, but I don't endorse this proposal without more
details:~Robert Widmann
2017/01/25 13:40、Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu@gmail.com> のメッセージ:
This is contrary to several deliberate design decisions, if I understand
correctly.First, revisions to visibility rules in the Swift 3 timeline were made
with the deliberate intention that it should be possible to model greater
visibility within a type (e.g. public members) without actually exporting
that type. As Swift does not have optional warnings that can be turned off,
it would be incongruous if the language also warned users away from
creating internal types or variables before they are used. Unlike warnings
about unused variables within a scope, which are by definition local, a
warning such as proposed would be much more disruptive.That decision wasn't really one made to support a deliberate design, but
to help make migration of fileprivate easier IIRC (Jordan Rose probably
remembers better than I do of the conversation we had about this).It's important to note we already provide module-wide warnings (namely if
we detect you mutating a let-bound member we offer a fixit at the site of
the member decl) so this isn't new.Second, a variable with no access modifier defaults to internal, and this
is deliberate for the purpose of progressive disclosure (i.e. it is, by
design, possible for a new user to write useful code separated across
multiple files without learning what access modifiers are). This would be
undone if nearly every such use prompted a warning.That enforces hiding from clients, OP wants to enforce a model where we
enforce data hiding from yourself as well. If a variable's access needs to
be escalated we can provide that fixit as well (instead of the current
errors we offer now which are usually spurious type errors because lookup
barfs).
Sure, the motivation is not ambiguous.
In the past, when new syntax for yet another access level has been
proposed, I've argued that perfect data hiding from yourself (as opposed to
clients) has been a non-goal (given the access levels available today) and
probably should continue to be. There's been disagreement about that--fine.
But _enforcing_ data hiding from yourself as The One True Way of Swift is
something else. Though not technically *source* breaking for existing code,
it is certainly radically design breaking. Far from being a bugfix, I'd
argue that such a change is big enough to merit one of those
manifesto-style big-picture discussions, and I'd want to be convinced of
huge wins for such a U-turn in direction.
In summary, I think the issue here is more one of style than safety, and
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Robert Widmann <devteam.codafi@gmail.com> wrote:
IMO is more within the scope of a linter.
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:27 Robert Widmann via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
So, to be clear, a warning about making internal variables more private
based on their usage in the entire module?Sounds doable. Probably wouldn't need to go through evolution to get it
too (but I'll let others make that call). Please file an SR about this too.~Robert Widmann
2017/01/25 3:25、Dave Kliman via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> のメッセージ:Hi!
I’m somewhat new to swift, so this issue may have been covered.
I really like how I get a warning for variables I’ve declared, but have
not mutated, or constants that I did not read.What about warnings for anything not accessed outside its declared scope,
encouraging the use of *private*, or *fileprivate* more often?-Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
One place a warning like this would be useful is with private/fileprivate code that resulted from migrating Swift 2 to 3. Xcode's automatic migrator naively changed all Swift 2 private declarations to fileprivate, since that's the obvious semantics-preserving change, but it's possible that this has had the knock-on effect that people overuse "fileprivate" because that's the example set by the migrator, and not for technical reasons. Given the number of ideas that have been raised about further extending or tweaking the visibility model since Swift 3, it's clear there's still some dissatisfaction with our current model, and we've been trying to get clear information about how well the existing model is working. Fileprivate is potentially overrepresented in code in the wild due to the migrator's behavior and people cargo-culting the migrator's code patterns, so a warning that suggested to users when they could make use of 'private' might help steer people to clean up their migrated code and give us a better idea of how well the model fits real-world problems.
-Joe
On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
This is contrary to several deliberate design decisions, if I understand correctly.
First, revisions to visibility rules in the Swift 3 timeline were made with the deliberate intention that it should be possible to model greater visibility within a type (e.g. public members) without actually exporting that type. As Swift does not have optional warnings that can be turned off, it would be incongruous if the language also warned users away from creating internal types or variables before they are used. Unlike warnings about unused variables within a scope, which are by definition local, a warning such as proposed would be much more disruptive.
Second, a variable with no access modifier defaults to internal, and this is deliberate for the purpose of progressive disclosure (i.e. it is, by design, possible for a new user to write useful code separated across multiple files without learning what access modifiers are). This would be undone if nearly every such use prompted a warning.
In summary, I think the issue here is more one of style than safety, and IMO is more within the scope of a linter.
I disagree that this is appropriate.
If there was a warning for use of fileprivate when private would be sufficient, there would have to be a way for a developer to indicate “no, my eventual *intent* is for this to be used by other code within this file”. Otherwise,
1. people may have to go a long period with spurious warnings in their database, or
2. to make it private with a comment “this can actually be fileprivate if you need to access it”, or
3. make it private and hope the next developer working on the code can evaluate that this value is ok to be fileprivate
private provides minimal safety to the code as a developer editing a file can just change the variable to fileprivate to accomplish what they need. Private provides an indication of intent - that this code was not intended to allow direct, external manipulation.
Perhaps there should have been a ‘maybeprivate’ keyword for migration? :-)
-DW
On Jan 26, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Joe Groff via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
This is contrary to several deliberate design decisions, if I understand correctly.
First, revisions to visibility rules in the Swift 3 timeline were made with the deliberate intention that it should be possible to model greater visibility within a type (e.g. public members) without actually exporting that type. As Swift does not have optional warnings that can be turned off, it would be incongruous if the language also warned users away from creating internal types or variables before they are used. Unlike warnings about unused variables within a scope, which are by definition local, a warning such as proposed would be much more disruptive.
Second, a variable with no access modifier defaults to internal, and this is deliberate for the purpose of progressive disclosure (i.e. it is, by design, possible for a new user to write useful code separated across multiple files without learning what access modifiers are). This would be undone if nearly every such use prompted a warning.
In summary, I think the issue here is more one of style than safety, and IMO is more within the scope of a linter.
One place a warning like this would be useful is with private/fileprivate code that resulted from migrating Swift 2 to 3. Xcode's automatic migrator naively changed all Swift 2 private declarations to fileprivate, since that's the obvious semantics-preserving change, but it's possible that this has had the knock-on effect that people overuse "fileprivate" because that's the example set by the migrator, and not for technical reasons. Given the number of ideas that have been raised about further extending or tweaking the visibility model since Swift 3, it's clear there's still some dissatisfaction with our current model, and we've been trying to get clear information about how well the existing model is working. Fileprivate is potentially overrepresented in code in the wild due to the migrator's behavior and people cargo-culting the migrator's code patterns, so a warning that suggested to users when they could make use of 'private' might help steer people to clean up their migrated code and give us a better idea of how well the model fits real-world problems.
That's definitely a legit use case. I think it's different from the
overarching proposal in that: 1) it has no progressive disclosure
implications because it is about one explicitly chosen level vs another;
and 2) it is about reducing uses that were clearly called out as suboptimal
in an approved proposal. IMO, it would be consistent to implement this
particular warning without anything else.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:21 Joe Groff <jgroff@apple.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> This is contrary to several deliberate design decisions, if I understand
correctly.
>
> First, revisions to visibility rules in the Swift 3 timeline were made
with the deliberate intention that it should be possible to model greater
visibility within a type (e.g. public members) without actually exporting
that type. As Swift does not have optional warnings that can be turned off,
it would be incongruous if the language also warned users away from
creating internal types or variables before they are used. Unlike warnings
about unused variables within a scope, which are by definition local, a
warning such as proposed would be much more disruptive.
>
> Second, a variable with no access modifier defaults to internal, and
this is deliberate for the purpose of progressive disclosure (i.e. it is,
by design, possible for a new user to write useful code separated across
multiple files without learning what access modifiers are). This would be
undone if nearly every such use prompted a warning.
>
> In summary, I think the issue here is more one of style than safety, and
IMO is more within the scope of a linter.One place a warning like this would be useful is with private/fileprivate
code that resulted from migrating Swift 2 to 3. Xcode's automatic migrator
naively changed all Swift 2 private declarations to fileprivate, since
that's the obvious semantics-preserving change, but it's possible that this
has had the knock-on effect that people overuse "fileprivate" because
that's the example set by the migrator, and not for technical reasons.
Given the number of ideas that have been raised about further extending or
tweaking the visibility model since Swift 3, it's clear there's still some
dissatisfaction with our current model, and we've been trying to get clear
information about how well the existing model is working. Fileprivate is
potentially overrepresented in code in the wild due to the migrator's
behavior and people cargo-culting the migrator's code patterns, so a
warning that suggested to users when they could make use of 'private' might
help steer people to clean up their migrated code and give us a better idea
of how well the model fits real-world problems.-Joe