Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 4, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Rien <r...@balancingrock.nl> wrote: > > >> On 04 Mar 2017, at 16:01, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> I have updated this proposal with a few more refinements based on >> yesterday’s discussion. You can find the final proposal on Github: >> >> https://github.com/anandabits/swift-evolution/blob/scope-bounded-capabilities/proposals/NNNN-scope-bounded-capabilities.md. >> >> Matthew >> >>> On Mar 2, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> The rules which make up the essential complexity in Swift's access control >>> system are: >>> >>> • The default scope for all capabilites a declaration offers is >>> module-wide (or submodule-wide in the future). >>> • The scope of a capability may be modified by an explicit access >>> modifier. >>> • The scope of an additional capability is implicitly bounded by the >>> scope of the basic capability. >>> • The scope of an additional capability may not be explicitly specified >>> as greater than that of the basic capability. >>> • If no scope is explicitly provided for the basic capability and an >>> additional capability is specified to be available outside the (sub)module >>> the basic capability is also given the same availability. >>> • The scope of a declaration (including all capabilities) may be bounded >>> by the declaration of ancestor. > > Do you mean: IS bounded by? No, not necessarily. If the declaration is bounded to the module and all ancestors are public the ancestors don't bound really bound it. I suppose you could say the ancestor still provides a bound that is just never reached. I'm that sense, it depends on how you want to look at it. :) > > >>> • The scope of a declaration may not be greater than the scope of the >>> capabilities necessary to use that declaration: if you can't see a >>> parameter type you can't call the function. >>> Most of these rules already exist in Swift's access control system. There >>> is one change and one addition: > > Overall I think the draft is pretty solid. > Imo this would give Swift the best available access control system I know of > ;-) > Thanks for your work on this! I'm glad to hear you like it! Thanks! I'm hoping the core team is willing to review it for Swift 4 and feedback continues to be positive. It feels like something that should be done in Swift 4 if we're going to do it. > > Regards, > Rien > > Site: http://balancingrock.nl > Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com > Github: http://github.com/Balancingrock > Project: http://swiftfire.nl > > > > > _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
