Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Feb 2017, at 06:31, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Feb 14, 2017, at 3:20 AM, David Hart <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On 14 Feb 2017, at 09:25, Goffredo Marocchi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I disagree with that as well as I still think we are damaging the language >>> each time we take a known concept (like access levels) and give new >>> meanings to the same keywords. I still look baffled at the redefinition of >>> do and the addition of repeat for example... >>> >>> Private, the way it was before, was an admittedly curious take on how most >>> languages mean by private and we have jumped through a lot of hoops to >>> justify why we did not start with Java/C++/C# like access control and >>> augmented it instead of redefining things, omitting others, and then >>> constantly pulling the language left and right with not a lot of permanent >>> consensus either way as this discussion and others before show. >> >> It's a curious take, but it is a curious take is perfectly coherent with >> Swift extensions. How else would you access private implementation details >> from an extension? But putting it in the same file, instead of having to >> resort to an internal access level. > > Right. Swift is its own language distinct from Java/C++/etc. While it is > intentionally designed to remain familiar (and thus reuses many keywords > across the language family), it often does so with slightly different meaning > / behavior. Consider ‘throw’ for example. > > Keeping with the spirit of Swift and staying consistent with its design, I > see two plausible meanings for private: > > Private could mean either: > 1) private to the file (Swift 2 semantics) > 2) accessible only to the current type/scope and to extensions to that type > that are in the current file. I think (2) is worth discussing. My 2 cents: Pros • Solves a high percentage of use cases of fileprivate • Type-scope proponents retain some of the safety Cons • Less straight forward to explain • Access to different type/scope in same file not possible anymore Honestly, I'd be quite happy about this compromise. :) > I don’t think we’ve ever evaluated and debated approach #2 systematically. > > -Chris >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
