You’re not really missing an other access modifier here. I assume you’re
speaking about a macOS/iOS app, right? Therefore the thing you’re really
missing is a full integration of SPM in Xcode macOS/iOS projects and
submodules. Then, and only then `internal` would really seem like the right
choice, because the rest of the app won’t be able to access all the type
members you’re trying to hide (assuming that part is moved to it’s own
submodule). Right now `public` and `open` doesn’t make any sense in such
projects, which is a pity.
Am 29. Oktober 2017 um 15:37:38, Mike Kluev via swift-evolution
(swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
i am missing some protection level, which can be called "classprivate" or
"structprivate" / "enumprivate" (names could be better). here is an example:
--- file Some.swift ---
class Some {
private func foo() {
bar() // error: inaccessible due to 'private'
}
}
--- file Some+Bar.swift ---
extension Some {
private func bar() {
foo() // error: inaccessible due to 'private'
}
}
1) i want to have this extension in a different file (to keep file sizes
manageable).
2) i can't use either private or fileprivate due to compilation errors
3) i do not want to have neither "foo" nor "bar" public
4) "internal" doesn't help as "foo" and "bar" will be available to my app
(which is unwanted).
is there some "classprivate" to help here? if not so far, shall there be one?
opinions?
Mike
_______________________________________________
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
