On Apr 5, 2017, at 4:31 AM, Vladimir.S <sva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From a pragmatic perspective, I feel like this is a great solution that
>> really does solve the problems we have with current access control, all
>> without breaking source compatibility. This is also a major progression
>> from where we are, and doesn’t appear to cut off any future directions
>> (e.g. submodules) since those are cross-file concepts that live between
>> internal/public or between fileprivate/internal.
>
> If we have Swift2's 'private' (instead of fileprivate) and 'scoped'(instead
> of current 'private'), then such 'private' can naturally mean "private to
> submodule" *especially* if file will be treated as un-named submodule.
As John McCall said up thread, introducing new keywords like “scoped” is out of
bounds for Swift 4.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
