> On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > > As I have said elsewhere, I think the mental anguish mostly derives from the > fact that scoped private is not the right “default” in a language that uses > extensions pervasively. Chris’s suggestion of having private mean “same file > *and* same type” would be a good default. But if we’re not willing to *also* > have fileprivate then the Swift 2 definition of private is the best > “default’. > > I still think scoped access control is valuable but taking `private` as the > keyword for this was a mistake. I’d like to see us take another stab at > identifying a suitable name for it. That said, I get the feeling that not > too many others have appetite for this so it may be a lost cause…
My opinion is that a file level grouping is fine, but that people want a level between that and internal. They want to have subsystems. In Swift 2, the only level below framework-wide was the fileprivate-style scope, which had the potential to encourage lots of interrelated code to be grouped within a single source file. -DW
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
