I don't fully agree: you are right that that is the case when writing code. However, when reading/maintaining code, the distinction is meaningful and potentially important.
-Chris > On Feb 12, 2017, at 12:02 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> 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. > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 13:33 Jean-Daniel via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> Le 12 févr. 2017 à 18:24, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> a écrit : >>> >>>> On Feb 12, 2017, at 8:19 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution >>>> <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) >>> 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 >>> 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
