> On Apr 20, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Jordan Rose <jordan_r...@apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Apr 18, 2017, at 20:40, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> This makes the private/fileprivate distinction meaningful for extensions. I >> think also bans the use of "private" at global scope for non-nominal types >> or extensions thereof. A clarifying update to the proposal is in order, so >> developers can better understand the semantics. > > Wait, hang on, then people have to write 'fileprivate' instead of 'private' > for top-level typealiases (and functions?).
That seems like the correct behavior; private is about members with SE-0169. What do you think? > Apart from whether or not that's desirable, it's not backwards-compatible. Very true! It’s an easy thing to migrate, but it’s a source break nonetheless. Let’s decide if it’s desirable and bring it up with the core team. - Doug
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution