> On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for hoisting this out into its own thread, Jordan. I was hesitant to
> elaborate more on another access level thread :)
>
> I think the change should absolutely be made. Even though the "private"
> keyword occurs at the file level, the description of the feature in the Swift
> documentation simply states: "you can mark an extension with an explicit
> access-level modifier to set a new default access level for all members
> defined within the extension." To me, that implies that "private extension
> Foo { func bar() }" should be identical to "extension Foo { private func
> bar() }", but today it becomes equivalent to "extension Foo { fileprivate
> func bar() }".
>
> That seems fundamentally broken, because (1) it's inconsistent, (2) "private
> extension" and "fileprivate extension" are two ways of saying the same thing,
> non-intuitively, and (3) there's no way for someone to use the shorthand
> syntax to take advantage of the new meaning of private within same-file type
> extensions.
>
> While I personally never use the shorthand extension access level feature
> (because I prefer the explicit form, and because of situations like this
> one), I definitely think it should be consistent for people who do want to
> use it.
>
> I wonder how much existing code would be affected by this change. Do people
> use "private extension" when they really want "fileprivate extension"? I
> would hope the number of users affected would be few, at least.
I don’t think I’ve ever used “private extension”, but if I did, I’d expect it
to not mean “fileprivate extension”.
- Dave Sweeris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
