Updated in https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/396 <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/396>. Thanks again, everyone!
Jordan > On Jun 29, 2016, at 16:51, Jordan Rose <jordan_r...@apple.com> wrote: > > I just attended a core team meeting where this whole thing was discussed, and > will update our amendment <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/383> > tonight. But in short: > > - The default access level will be 'internal' everywhere*. The compiler will > not warn if the access-as-written is broader than necessary. Motivation: it > should be possible to design a type's API as if it had more access than it > currently does. > > * except in extensions, see below > > - The complicated "rule 2" from the amendment stands, but possibly in a form > that isn't specific to 'fileprivate': > >> A non-private method, initializer, subscript, property, or typealias may >> still have a type that references `private` declarations if (1) the >> non-private declaration is a member of a private type, and (2) all >> referenced `private` declarations are defined within an enclosing lexical >> scope. That is, it is legal for a non-private member within a `private` type >> to have a type that is formally `private` if it would be legal for a >> `private` declaration in the parent scope to have that type. > > > As Xiaodi pointed out, this could be even broader, to say that an internal > member may reference a fileprivate type if the member is itself defined > within a fileprivate type, because it's still safe. That would look like this: > >> A member may not have a type that references any declarations that aren't >> accessible wherever the member is accessible. > > I'm concerned about that being too permissive, though. I still want this to > be considered an error: > > fileprivate struct Foo { > fileprivate typealias Bar = Int > internal func baz() -> Bar { … } > } > > - An access modifier on an extension has been ruled to indicate the desired > scope, not the desired access. Therefore, members within a `private > extension` will be `fileprivate`. (We're only really getting away with this > because we don't allow extensions anywhere but at the top level, though if we > had nested extensions we'd probably consider them scoped anyway.) > > - We are not looking at renaming either 'fileprivate' or 'private' for Swift > 3. > > - All this has been ruled not to need a formal review. > > Thanks everyone for getting us to this point. It's definitely different from > what I would have come up with on my own or just collaborating with Robert, > so you can all count yourselves as contributors to this one. :-) > > Jordan > > P.S. If you see further issues here I'd still like to hear them; if you're > unclear on any points after I've updated the pull request > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/383>, I'm happy to go over > them again.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
