> On Feb 16, 2017, at 5:42 PM, Sean Heber via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > Honestly I really think this should be seriously considered. I do use private > and fileprivate and such myself *because it’s there* and as a result it feels > like I should - but I shudder to think how much brainpower I’ve wasted(?) on > deciding which one to use when. I strongly suspect that the degree of the > benefits of all these access levels is not as significant as it seems on the > surface.
I think this applies more to private vs. fileprivate. Having *some* way to mark something as private — if nothing else, to tell other programmers (including Future You) to think twice before using it directly — is pretty useful in a large project. But having finer shades than that does seem to just cause mental anguish. John. > > l8r > Sean (who has no actual data) > > >> On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Slava Pestov via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> 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> wrote: >>>> On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution >>>> <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 >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
