Re: [swift-evolution] Make access control private by default.

2016-05-24 Thread L. Mihalkovic via swift-evolution
> On May 24, 2016, at 4:23 AM, John McCall via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On May 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Leonardo Pessoa via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> I was just about to mention this too. I think it's interesting that >> one can write a simple application in Swift without having

Re: [swift-evolution] Make access control private by default.

2016-05-23 Thread John McCall via swift-evolution
> On May 23, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Leonardo Pessoa via swift-evolution > wrote: > > I was just about to mention this too. I think it's interesting that > one can write a simple application in Swift without having to worry > (much) about visibility of elements. Please note I'm talking about > applic

Re: [swift-evolution] Make access control private by default.

2016-05-23 Thread Leonardo Pessoa via swift-evolution
I was just about to mention this too. I think it's interesting that one can write a simple application in Swift without having to worry (much) about visibility of elements. Please note I'm talking about applications not frameworks. I also agree this is good for teachability because you can worry a

Re: [swift-evolution] Make access control private by default.

2016-05-23 Thread Jean-Daniel Dupas via swift-evolution
> Le 23 mai 2016 à 23:21, Knut Lorenzen via swift-evolution > a écrit : > > >> On 19 May 2016, at 19:18, John McCall wrote: >> >> That is not at all true. The dynamic OOP languages do not, as a rule, have >> any access control at all. Java and C# default to package access, which is >> an

Re: [swift-evolution] Make access control private by default.

2016-05-23 Thread Knut Lorenzen via swift-evolution
> On 19 May 2016, at 19:18, John McCall wrote: > > That is not at all true. The dynamic OOP languages do not, as a rule, have > any access control at all. Java and C# default to package access, which is > analogous to internal. C++ is, as always, complicated and different. Class members ar

Re: [swift-evolution] Make access control private by default.

2016-05-19 Thread John McCall via swift-evolution
> On May 15, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Knut Lorenzen via swift-evolution > wrote: > I think internal as default is bad, because it discourages encapsulation. > > Building scalable software components relies on hiding implementation details > to create layers of abstraction. It’s a fundamental principl

[swift-evolution] Make access control private by default.

2016-05-17 Thread Knut Lorenzen via swift-evolution
I think internal as default is bad, because it discourages encapsulation. Building scalable software components relies on hiding implementation details to create layers of abstraction. It’s a fundamental principle of object-oriented software design. Most other OOP languages have private default.