Fixed wordings in access-control doc for F#. #43965
Conversation
shethaadit
requested review from
BillWagner,
KathleenDollard and
a team
as code owners
dotnet-policy-service
bot
added
okr-quality
|
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? |
| @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ In F#, the access control specifiers `public`, `internal`, and `private` can be | |||
|
|
|||
| 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.
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.
Summary
Fixed wordings in access-control doc for F#.
Fixes #41852
Internal previews