I converted my swift 2 code into swift 3. Then I'm getting this error. Can anyone help me on this?
open override var formatKey: String { //overriding non-open var outside of its defining module
get {
if customFormatKey != nil {
return customFormatKey!
}
return String(describing: type(of: self)).components(separatedBy: ".").last!
}
}
According to the Access Control section of The Swift Programming Language:
Open access applies only to classes and class members, and it differs
from public access as follows:
Classes with public access, or any more restrictive access level, can
be subclassed only within the module where they’re defined.
Class members with public access, or any more restrictive access
level, can be overridden by subclasses only within the module where
they’re defined.
Open classes can be subclassed within the module where they’re
defined, and within any module that imports the module where they’re
defined.
Open class members can be overridden by subclasses within the module
where they’re defined, and within any module that imports the module
where they’re defined.
open in Swift 3 and later is the equivalent of public in Swift 2. For more information, see Swift Evolution proposal SE-0117.
To fix this, change the original definition of formatKey from public to open, and override using override var formatKey: String { ....
I did face with the same issue, then you can try to search all project - include pods/ folder - to make sure this formatKey is not public var somewhere in your project.
I've been searching over access control guides and tutorials, but couldn't find any information.
Imagine you have some Swift module with class A implementation. This class is internal. It has some property, let's call it prop.
The question is: what changes if I set it's access level from internal to public?
internal class A {
public var prop: String?
}
I saw examples of such code, but don't understand, why. Is it just useful when you decide to make your type public, so you don't need to change access level of properties and methods? Or it has some other practical use like giving someone else access while the type is still internal?
As per Apple doc
A public variable cannot be defined as having an internal,
file-private, or private type, because the type might not be available
everywhere that the public variable is used.
More about Internal -
Internal access enables entities to be used within any source file
from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of that
module. You typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a
framework’s internal structure.
So no use of declared public inside internal class.
There is no difference in overall functionality: since your class is internal, it cannot be exposed in public members, say public var propA : A or public func f(a:A) so the fact that its members have public visibility makes no difference.
However, by using public you avoid repeating yourself: you have already designated the whole class internal, so you don't need to designate all its individual members as internal.
It also becomes helpful if you decide to convert the class to public at some later time, because you change only one internal modifier to public.
I already read the documentation about the new modifiers "open" and "fileprivate". But there are two things that I don't understand:
Why is it not possible to declare protocols or extensions also as "open"? And does it mean that it's not possible to use these things outside a module?
If I don't want to build my classes for a module but an common app, should I declare my classes and methods as "open" anyway or is it good practice to keep them only "public"?
As this answer says:
An open class is accessible and subclassable outside of the defining module. An open class member is accessible and overridable outside of the defining module.
A public class is accessible but not subclassable outside of the defining module. A public class member is accessible but not overridable outside of the defining module.
I think the answer to your first question, is that you can't override or subclass a protocol or extension. Thus, there is no use for such things to be open because public already makes them accessible outside of a module.
For your second question, I would say that you should only declare your own classes as open if you plan on overriding or subclassing. Otherwise you are allowing unnecessary access to these items. Most of the time public should suit your needs.
Edit:
As #Alex points out, I don't think there are many downsides to allowing this "extra access". The only thing I can think of is if you just wanted to protect your classes from your future self, but that may or may not be applicable. Thus, if this is not the case, there shouldn't be much harm in setting them as open by default.
open is for another module, for example in we use it in unit test or in cocoa pods, you can inherit from a pod (if it's: open class somePod {...}) or override some function (if it's: open func someFunctionInPod{...}) in your project.
As of Xcode 8 beta 6 I now get the compile error "Cannot inherit from non-open class (Class)" outside of its defining module"
The class I was inheriting from was part of a separate Swift framework but my project compiled for Xcode 8 beta 5. What do I need to change to get my project to compile again?
Found the answer myself.
In Swift 3 you can now mark a class as open instead of public this allows files outside of the module to subclass that class.
Simply replace public in your module class with open.
Reference here.
The class you inherit from needs to be defined as open instead of public.
A bit more context on the changes to access control in Swift 3:
Swift 2 only had 3 access levels:
private: entities are available only from within the source file where they are defined.
internal: entities are available to the entire module that includes the definition.
public: entities are intended for use as API, and can be accessed by any file that imports the module.
Swift 3 is adding 2 more access levels (open and fileprivate) and changing the meaning of private:
private: symbol visible within the current declaration only.
fileprivate: symbol visible within the current file.
internal: symbol visible within the current module or default access modifier.
public: symbol visible outside the current module.
open: for class or function to be subclassed or overridden outside the current module.
I had this error even after marking the class as open (on Xcode 14.1). The fix was a clean (Cmd + Shift + K) and rebuild.
In Objective-C instance data can be public, protected or private. For example:
#interface Foo : NSObject
{
#public
int x;
#protected:
int y;
#private:
int z;
}
-(int) apple;
-(int) pear;
-(int) banana;
#end
I haven't found any mention of access modifiers in the Swift reference. Is it possible to limit the visibility of data in Swift?
As of Swift 3.0.1, there are 4 levels of access, described below from the highest (least restrictive) to the lowest (most restrictive).
1. open and public
Enable an entity to be used outside the defining module (target). You typically use open or public access when specifying the public interface to a framework.
However, open access applies only to classes and class members, and it differs from public access as follows:
public classes and class members can only be subclassed and overridden within the defining module (target).
open classes and class members can be subclassed and overridden both within and outside the defining module (target).
// First.framework – A.swift
open class A {}
// First.framework – B.swift
public class B: A {} // ok
// Second.framework – C.swift
import First
internal class C: A {} // ok
// Second.framework – D.swift
import First
internal class D: B {} // error: B cannot be subclassed
2. internal
Enables an entity to be used within the defining module (target). You typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s internal structure.
// First.framework – A.swift
internal struct A {}
// First.framework – B.swift
A() // ok
// Second.framework – C.swift
import First
A() // error: A is unavailable
3. fileprivate
Restricts the use of an entity to its defining source file. You typically use fileprivate access to hide the implementation details of a specific piece of functionality when those details are used within an entire file.
// First.framework – A.swift
internal struct A {
fileprivate static let x: Int
}
A.x // ok
// First.framework – B.swift
A.x // error: x is not available
4. private
Restricts the use of an entity to its enclosing declaration. You typically use private access to hide the implementation details of a specific piece of functionality when those details are used only within a single declaration.
// First.framework – A.swift
internal struct A {
private static let x: Int
internal static func doSomethingWithX() {
x // ok
}
}
A.x // error: x is unavailable
Swift 4 / Swift 5
As per mentioned in the Swift Documentation - Access Control, Swift has 5 Access Controls:
open and public: can be accessed from their module's entities and any module's entities that imports the defining module.
internal: can only be accessed from their module's entities. It is the default access level.
fileprivate and private: can only be accessed in limited within a limited scope where you define them.
What is the difference between open and public?
open is the same as public in previous versions of Swift, they allow classes from other modules to use and inherit them, i.e: they can be subclassed from other modules. Also, they allow members from other modules to use and override them. The same logic goes for their modules.
public allow classes from other module to use them, but not to inherit them, i.e: they cannot be subclassed from other modules. Also, they allow members from other modules to use them, but NOT to override them. For their modules, they have the same open's logic (they allow classes to use and inherit them; They allow members to use and override them).
What is the difference between fileprivate and private?
fileprivate can be accessed from the their entire files.
private can only be accessed from their single declaration and to extensions of that declaration that are in the same file; For instance:
// Declaring "A" class that has the two types of "private" and "fileprivate":
class A {
private var aPrivate: String?
fileprivate var aFileprivate: String?
func accessMySelf() {
// this works fine
self.aPrivate = ""
self.aFileprivate = ""
}
}
// Declaring "B" for checking the abiltiy of accessing "A" class:
class B {
func accessA() {
// create an instance of "A" class
let aObject = A()
// Error! this is NOT accessable...
aObject.aPrivate = "I CANNOT set a value for it!"
// this works fine
aObject.aFileprivate = "I CAN set a value for it!"
}
}
What are the differences between Swift 3 and Swift 4 Access Control?
As mentioned in the SE-0169 proposal, the only refinement has been added to Swift 4 is that the private access control scope has been expanded to be accessible from extensions of that declaration in the same file; For instance:
struct MyStruct {
private let myMessage = "Hello World"
}
extension MyStruct {
func printMyMessage() {
print(myMessage)
// In Swift 3, you will get a compile time error:
// error: 'myMessage' is inaccessible due to 'private' protection level
// In Swift 4 it should works fine!
}
}
So, there is no need to declare myMessage as fileprivate to be accessible in the whole file.
When one talks about making a "private method" in Swift or ObjC (or ruby or java or…) those methods aren't really private. There's no actual access control around them. Any language that offers even a little introspection lets developers get to those values from outside the class if they really want to.
So what we're really talking about here is a way to define a public-facing interface that merely presents the functionality we want it to, and "hides" the rest that we consider "private".
The Swift mechanism for declaring interfaces is the protocol, and it can be used for this purpose.
protocol MyClass {
var publicProperty:Int {get set}
func publicMethod(foo:String)->String
}
class MyClassImplementation : MyClass {
var publicProperty:Int = 5
var privateProperty:Int = 8
func publicMethod(foo:String)->String{
return privateMethod(foo)
}
func privateMethod(foo:String)->String{
return "Hello \(foo)"
}
}
Remember, protocols are first-class types and can be used anyplace a type can. And, when used this way, they only expose their own interfaces, not those of the implementing type.
Thus, as long as you use MyClass instead of MyClassImplementation in your parameter types, etc. it should all just work:
func breakingAndEntering(foo:MyClass)->String{
return foo.privateMethod()
//ERROR: 'MyClass' does not have a member named 'privateMethod'
}
There are some cases of direct assignment where you have to be explicit with type instead of relying on Swift to infer it, but that hardly seems a deal breaker:
var myClass:MyClass = MyClassImplementation()
Using protocols this way is semantic, reasonably concise, and to my eyes looks a lot like the Class Extentions we've been using for this purpose in ObjC.
As far as I can tell, there are no keywords 'public', 'private' or 'protected'. This would suggest everything is public.
However Apple may be expecting people to use “protocols” (called interfaces by the rest of the world) and the factory design pattern to hide details of the implementation type.
This is often a good design pattern to use anyway; as it lets you change your implementation class hierarchy, while keeping the logical type system the same.
Using a combination of protocols, closures, and nested/inner classes, it's possible to use something along the lines of the module pattern to hide information in Swift right now. It's not super clean or nice to read but it does work.
Example:
protocol HuhThing {
var huh: Int { get set }
}
func HuhMaker() -> HuhThing {
class InnerHuh: HuhThing {
var innerVal: Int = 0
var huh: Int {
get {
return mysteriousMath(innerVal)
}
set {
innerVal = newValue / 2
}
}
func mysteriousMath(number: Int) -> Int {
return number * 3 + 2
}
}
return InnerHuh()
}
HuhMaker()
var h = HuhMaker()
h.huh // 2
h.huh = 32
h.huh // 50
h.huh = 39
h.huh // 59
innerVal and mysteriousMath are hidden here from outside use and attempting to dig your way into the object should result in an error.
I'm only part of the way through my reading of the Swift docs so if there's a flaw here please point it out, would love to know.
As of Xcode 6 beta 4, Swift has access modifiers. From the release notes:
Swift access control has three access levels:
private entities can only be accessed from within the source file where they are defined.
internal entities can be accessed anywhere within the target where they are defined.
public entities can be accessed from anywhere within the target and from any other context that imports the current target’s module.
The implicit default is internal, so within an application target you can leave access modifiers off except where you want to be more restrictive. In a framework target (e.g. if you're embedding a framework to share code between an app and an sharing or Today view extension), use public to designate API you want to expose to clients of your framework.
Swift 3.0 provides five different access controls:
open
public
internal
fileprivate
private
Open access and public access enable entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, and also in a
source file from another module that imports the defining module. You
typically use open or public access when specifying the public
interface to a framework.
Internal access enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of that
module. You typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a
framework’s internal structure.
File-private access restricts the use of an entity to its own defining source file. Use file-private access to hide the
implementation details of a specific piece of functionality when those
details are used within an entire file.
Private access restricts the use of an entity to the enclosing declaration. Use private access to hide the implementation details of
a specific piece of functionality when those details are used only
within a single declaration.
Open access is the highest (least restrictive) access level and private access is the lowest (most restrictive) access level.
Default Access Levels
All entities in your code (with a few specific exceptions) have a default access level of internal if you do not specify an explicit access level yourself. As a result, in many cases you do not need to specify an explicit access level in your code.
The release note on the topic:
Classes declared as public can no longer be subclassed outside of
their defining module, and methods declared as public can no longer be
overridden outside of their defining module. To allow a class to be
externally subclassed or a method to be externally overridden, declare
them as open, which is a new access level beyond public. Imported
Objective-C classes and methods are now all imported as open rather
than public. Unit tests that import a module using an #testable import
will still be allowed to subclass public or internal classes as well
as override public or internal methods. (SE-0117)
More information & details :
The Swift Programming Language (Access Control)
In Beta 6, the documentation states that there are three different access modifiers:
Public
Internal
Private
And these three apply to Classes, Protocols, functions and properties.
public var somePublicVariable = 0
internal let someInternalConstant = 0
private func somePrivateFunction() {}
For more, check Access Control.
Now in beta 4, they've added access modifiers to Swift.
from Xcode 6 beta 4 realese notes:
Swift access control has three access levels:
private entities can only be accessed from within the source file where they are defined.
internal entities can be accessed anywhere within the target where they are defined.
public entities can be accessed from anywhere within the target and from any other context
that imports the current target’s module.
By default, most entities in a source file have internal access. This allows application developers
to largely ignore access control while allowing framework developers full control over a
framework's API.
Access control mechanisms as introduced in Xcode 6:
Swift provides three different access levels for entities within your code. These access levels are relative to the source file in which an entity is defined, and also relative to the module that source file belongs to.
Public access enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, and also in a source file from another module that imports the defining module. You typically use public access when specifying the public interface to a framework.
Internal access enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of that module. You typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s internal structure.
Private access restricts the use of an entity to its own defining source file. Use private access to hide the implementation details of a specific piece of functionality.
Public access is the highest (least restrictive) access level and private access is the lowest (or most restrictive) access level.
Default accecss it internal, and does as such not need to be specified. Also note that the private specifier does not work on the class level, but on the source file level. This means that to get parts of a class really private you need to separate into a file of its own. This also introduces some interesting cases with regards to unit testing...
Another point to me made, which is commented upon in the link above, is that you can't 'upgrade' the access level. If you subclass something, you can restrict it more, but not the other way around.
This last bit also affects functions, tuples and surely other stuff in the way that if i.e. a function uses a private class, then it's not valid to have the function internal or public, as they might not have access to the private class. This results in a compiler warning, and you need to redeclare the function as a private function.
Swift 3 and 4 brought a lot of change also for the access levels of variables and methods. Swift 3 and 4 now has 4 different access levels, where open/public access is the highest (least restrictive) access level and private access is the lowest (most restrictive) access level:
private functions and members can only be accessed from within the scope of the entity itself (struct, class, …) and its extensions (in Swift 3 also the extensions were restricted)
fileprivate functions and members can only be accessed from within the source file where they are declared.
internal functions and members (which is the default, if you do not explicitly add an access level key word) can be accessed anywhere within the target where they are defined. Thats why the TestTarget doesn't have automatically access to all sources, they have to be marked as accessible in xCode's file inspector.
open or public functions and members can be accessed from anywhere within the target and from any other context that imports the current target’s module.
Interesting:
Instead of marking every single method or member as "private", you can cover some methods (e.g. typically helper functions) in an extension of a class / struct and mark the whole extension as "Private".
class foo { }
private extension foo {
func somePrivateHelperFunction01() { }
func somePrivateHelperFunction02() { }
func somePrivateHelperFunction03() { }
}
This can be a good idea, in order to get better maintainable code. And you can easily switch (e.g. for unit testing) to non-private by just changing one word.
Apple documentation
For Swift 1-3:
No, it's not possible. There aren't any private/protected methods and variables at all.
Everything is public.
Update
Since Swift 4, it's possible see other answers in this thread
One of the options you could use is to wrap the instance creation into a function and supply the appropriate getters and setters in a constructor:
class Counter {
let inc: () -> Int
let dec: () -> Int
init(start: Int) {
var n = start
inc = { ++n }
dec = { --n }
}
}
let c = Counter(start: 10)
c.inc() // 11
c.inc() // 12
c.dec() // 11
The language grammar does not have the keywords 'public', 'private' or 'protected'. This would suggest everything is public. Of course, there could be some alternative method of specifying access modifiers without those keywords but I couldn't find it in the language reference.
Hopefully to save some time for those who want something akin to protected methods:
As per other answers, swift now provides the 'private' modifier - which is defined file-wise rather than class-wise such as those in Java or C# for instance. This means that if you want protected methods, you can do it with swift private methods if they are in the same file
Create a base class to hold 'protected' methods (actually private)
Subclass this class to use the same methods
In other files you cannot access the base class methods, even when you subclass either
e.g. File 1:
class BaseClass {
private func protectedMethod() {
}
}
class SubClass : BaseClass {
func publicMethod() {
self.protectedMethod() //this is ok as they are in same file
}
}
File 2:
func test() {
var a = BaseClass()
a.protectedMethod() //ERROR
var b = SubClass()
b.protectedMethod() //ERROR
}
class SubClass2 : BaseClass {
func publicMethod() {
self.protectedMethod() //ERROR
}
}
till swift 2.0 there were only three access level [Public, internal, private]
but in swift 3.0 apple added two new access level which are [ Open, fileType ] so
now in swift 3.0 there are 5 access level
Here I want to clear the role of these two access level
1. Open: this is much similar to Public but the only difference is that the Public
can access the subclass and override, and Open access level can not access that this image is taken from Medium website and this describe the difference between open and public access
Now to second new access level
2. filetype is bigger version of private or less access level than internal
The fileType can access the extended part of the [class, struct, enum]
and private can not access the extended part of code it can only access the
lexical scope
this image is taken from Medium website and this describe the difference between fileType and Private access level