[swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

[Jordan Rose]

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez <cheyo at masters3d.com <mailto:cheyo at masters3d.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I know this might be have been brought up before but
> >
> > why not just disallow the “private" keyword for top level types, extensions etc.
> >
> > A fixit could change top level `private` to `fileprivate`.
> >
> > I think this is a little less confusing since effectively this is what is happening in the background.
> 
> That doesn’t fix anything for inner types, so it’s a lot less important than the rest of the amendment.
> 
> There actually is an answer to this, which is that the core team expects 'private' to be the common keyword, and therefore it’s better if you can use it at the top level and ignore ‘fileprivate’ altogether in most programs.
> 
> On second thought, wouldn't all of this be inapplicable if `private` literally meant visibility *only* within the current declaration, and neither outside it nor inside any nested types, etc.?

Yes, but that's not very useful:

public struct Foo {
  private var value: Int = 0
  public func test() {
    print(value) // error
  }
}

I suppose you could say that nested types are different from nested functions, but then we start getting complexity in a different direction. And it still doesn't fix the default access within a private type.

Jordan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160629/481367db/attachment.html>