Do you a have a link to that discussion?
> On 10 Aug 2017, at 00:04, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agree, but again, I tried, and the answer was no, it’s not considered a bug
> and cannot be fixed without independent discussion.
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 16:51 David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote:
>> The last thing I want is to launch into a new round of discussions. I am
>> just hoping it can be considered as a straight bug that can be fixed without
>> any discussion.
>>
>>
>>> On 9 Aug 2017, at 23:47, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I brought this up after SE-0169, but it was deemed to be a separate issue
>>> and any further consideration was declined. Let’s not initiate another
>>> round of access control discussions.
>>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 16:31 David Hart via swift-evolution
>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>> Actually, I think this is this way only as a relic from the original
>>>> private/fileprivate proposal. Swift 3’s private has no meaning as an
>>>> extension modifier, so it was made to alias to fileprivate. But since
>>>> SE-0169 modified private’s meaning so that it would make sense as an
>>>> extension modifier, I think we should fix this.
>>>>
>>>>> On 9 Aug 2017, at 23:22, David Hart via swift-evolution
>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That behaviour was never explicitly mentioned in SE-0169 but I agree its
>>>>> confusing. But I’m also fairly sure the only window to do anything about
>>>>> it is Swift 4. Everybody is really worn down by those access level
>>>>> discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> For illustration, Vladimir is confused that:
>>>>>
>>>>> private extension Foo {
>>>>> func foo() {}
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> is equivalent to:
>>>>>
>>>>> fileprivate extension Foo {
>>>>> func foo() {}
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> making it accessible to another type in the same file:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct Bar {
>>>>> func bar(foo: Foo) {
>>>>> foo.foo()
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't access levels on extensions supposed to define the default access
>>>>> level of the members of the extension?Is this a bug then?
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9 Aug 2017, at 21:18, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution
>>>>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could someone remind please, was it decided to stick with 'private
>>>>>> extension' means actually fileprivate access level for members declared
>>>>>> in such extension or this could be discussed for Swift5?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, when private members are visible in type/extensions of that
>>>>>> type in the same file, IMO there is no sense to treat 'private
>>>>>> extension' as 'fileprivate extension', it is reasonable to group some
>>>>>> private members of type into extension without making them fileprivate,
>>>>>> and such members can be used from the type/other extensions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And also this is a huge inconsistency in my opinion: all other access
>>>>>> modifiers 'work' as expected for extensions, but only 'private
>>>>>> extension' means not what written, very surprising for one who don't
>>>>>> expect this.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
