-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.1k
Fixed wordings in access-control doc for F#. #43965
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
psfinaki
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice, thank you! :)
|
From the same docs, this is where access specifiers make sense: Access control e.g. for a What is the real intention please? |
|
Can you work on the resolution to the comment above? Do we need more work here? |
|
Hi @BillWagner, thank you for your comment. @T-Gro, since @psfinaki has already approved the PR, not sure what should we change. @T-Gro, could you provide your inputs? |
| The access specifier is put in front of the name of the entity. | ||
|
|
||
| If no access specifier is used, the default is `public`, except for `let` bindings in a type, which are always `private` to the type. | ||
| If no access specifier is used, the default is `public`, except for `let` bindings in a type or a function, which are always `private` to the type. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let bindings inside a function will often become just stack values, which do not have any access modifier.
I would rather keep the original phrasing as it was.
If you want to expand on "functions declared within other functions", it should be its own sentence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @psfinaki, could you please provide your inputs so we can close this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shethaadit I agree with the above. I approved the PR because it makes the docs better anyway but the @T-Gro's inputs are valid so if it's not much effort for you, I would also appreciate if you address those.
Sorry for this taking long, Xmas came in sight, hope we'll progress with this quickly now.
Thanks for your continuous efforts around F# docs!
Summary
Fixed wordings in access-control doc for F#.
Fixes #41852
Internal previews