> On 12 Feb 2017, at 21:02, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > If the overwhelming use case is that developers should pick one over the > other primarily because it looks nicer, then blindly click the fix-it when > things stop working, then the distinction between private and fileprivate is > pretty clearly a mere nuisance that doesn't carry its own weight.
Totally agree. let and var are a different story because the guarantees you get from a value being immutable are much useful than the safety that private provides over fileprivate. Because of how Swift heavily uses extensions, we need a file-scoped accessor. But I don’t think that the scope-based private adds enough safety to warrant an extra keyword. That’s why I’m fighting this fight :) > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 13:33 Jean-Daniel via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> Le 12 févr. 2017 à 18:24, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> a écrit : >> >> On Feb 12, 2017, at 8:19 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> Final >>> Can someone tell me what is the use of 'final' now that we have 'public' >>> default to disallowing subclassing in importing modules? I know that >>> 'final' has the added constraint of disallowing subclassing in the same >>> module, but how useful is that? Does it hold its weight? Would we add it >>> now if it did not exist? >> >> As Matthew says, this is still important. >> >>> Lazy >>> This one is clearer: if Joe Groff's property behaviors proposal from last >>> year is brought forward again, lazy can be demoted from a language keyword >>> to a Standard Library property behavior. If Joe or anybody from the core >>> team sees this: do we have any luck of having this awesome feature we >>> discussed/designed/implemented in the Swift 4 timeframe? >> >> Sadly, there is no chance to get property behaviors into Swift 4. Hopefully >> Swift 5, but it’s impossible to say right now. >> >>> Fileprivate >>> >>> I started the discussion early during the Swift 4 timeframe that I regret >>> the change in Swift 3 which introduced a scoped private keyword. For me, >>> it's not worth the increase in complexity in access modifiers. I was very >>> happy with the file-scope of Swift pre-3. When discussing that, Chris >>> Latner mentioned we'd have to wait for Phase 2 to re-discuss it and also >>> show proof that people mostly used 'fileprivate' and not the new 'private' >>> modifier as proof if we want the proposal to have any weight. Does anybody >>> have a good idea for compiling stats from GitHub on this subject? First of >>> all, I've always found the GitHub Search quite bad and don't know how much >>> it can be trusted. Secondly, because 'private' in Swift 2 and 3 have >>> different meanings, a simple textual search might get us wrong results if >>> we don't find a way to filter on Swift 3 code. >> >> I would still like to re-evaluate fileprivate based on information in the >> field. The theory of the SE-0025 >> (https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md >> >> <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md>) >> was that the fileprivate keyword would be used infrequently: this means >> that it would uglify very little code and when it occurred, it would carry >> meaning and significance. > > Infrequent use and significance are orthogonal. > I still think developers would declare all ivars private (this is less ugly > and shorter), and then will happily convert them to fileprivate each time the > compiler will tell them they are not accessible somewhere else in the file. > As the code that try to access that ivar is in the same file anyway, it has > full knowledge of the implementation details and there is no good reason it > shouldn’t be able to access the ivar when needed. > >> We have a problem with evaluating that theory though: the Swift 2->3 >> migrator mechanically changed all instances of private into fileprivate. >> This uglified a ton of code unnecessarily and (even worse) lead programmers >> to think they should use fileprivate everywhere. Because of this, it is >> hard to look at a random Swift 3 codebase and determine whether SE-0025 is >> working out as intended. >> >> The best way out of this that I can think of is to add a *warning* to the >> Swift 3.1 or 4 compiler which detects uses of fileprivate that can be >> tightened to “private” and provide a fixit to do the change. This would be >> similar to how we suggest changing ‘var’ into ‘let’ where possible. Over >> time, this would have the effect of getting us back to the world we intended >> in SE-0025. >> >> -Chris >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > _______________________________________________ > 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
