While we’re bikeshedding, I’m going to add my two cents. Hold on to your hat because this might be controversial here.
I think both ‘private’ and ‘fileprivate’ are unnecessary complications that only serve to clutter the language. It would make a lot more sense to just have internal and public only. No private, no fileprivate, no lineprivate, no protected. It’s all silly. Slava > On Feb 15, 2017, at 7:40 AM, T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > "Either keep it or drop it, but don't keep fiddling with it." sums up my > position well. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution > > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > > > > 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 don’t think we’ve ever evaluated and debated approach #2 systematically. > > For what it's worth: > > I was opposed to SE-0025, but since I lost, I have tried to use `private` > wherever it made sense, rather than fighting with the language. > > Sometimes, the change of keyword makes no difference. Other times, it's a > hassle, because I have to switch between `private` and `fileprivate` as I > redesign things, with little perceived benefit. I'd say the split between > these is about 50/50. > > On a few occasions, I *have* genuinely appreciated the SE-0025 version of > `private`. These involved cases where I wanted to ensure that instance > variables were only manipulated in certain ways, using interfaces I had > specifically designed to handle them correctly. For instance, I might have > two parallel arrays, and I wanted to make sure that I only added or removed > elements from both arrays at once. I could do this with `fileprivate` by > splitting the type into two files, but it was more convenient to do it in one. > > In these cases, switching to #2 would *completely* defeat the purpose of > using `private`, because the extensions would be able to directly manipulate > the private instance variables. I would no longer gain any benefit at all > from `private`. All of my uses would either fall into "makes no difference" > or "it's a hassle". > > I do not support the idea of changing `private` to mean #2. Doing so would > eliminate the few decent use cases I've found for `private`. Either keep it > or drop it, but don't keep fiddling with it. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > > _______________________________________________ > 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
