[swift-evolution] Swift evolution proposal: introduce typeprivate access control level
joaodav at fade.up.pt
Thu Dec 1 06:21:37 CST 2016
@Tino: Regarding the following statement - "Even if there was a change of mind, fileprivate is still needed for essential things like implementing Equatable.”
How exactly is that so? Am I missing something?
> > - Typeprivate would allow to abandon the odd fileprivate. Access level would be constrained to swift constructs (structs, classes and extensions) and not to a compiler artifact (file).
> Actually, imho fileprivate isn't odd or "unswift"* — it's one of the three original levels, which all rely on the layout of the filesystem ("same file?" and "same folder/module?").
> Even if there was a change of mind, fileprivate is still needed for essential things like implementing Equatable.
> But I'm not arguing against typeprivate at all (nor against access control in general ;-)
> - Tino
> * I tend not to use attributes like "swifty"… most of the time, it just means "I think this is the right choice"
iOS Developer / Researcher
CIAFEL<https://ciafel.fade.up.pt/> - University of Porto
Rua Dr Plácido Costa, 91
+351 93 363 19 27 | Skype: joaotdavid
joaodav at fade.up.pt<mailto:joaodav at fade.up.pt>
Please visit the iSOPARC<http://ciafel.fade.up.pt/isoparc> and iSOFIT<http://ciafel.fade.up.pt/isofit> for iPad application website.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution