[swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Aron Lindberg]

I think this is a great idea!

I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.

> On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still sleepy. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> 
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev (adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com <mailto:adrian.zubarev at devandartist.com>) schrieb:
> 
>> You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate yet. :D
>> 
>> @core-team: See what you have done with >>file<<private thing. typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers. 
>> 
>> Instead of just going with
>> 
>> private
>> private(file)
>> 
>> // for new one   
>> private(type)
>> I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we have fileprivate now.
>> 
>> Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.
>> 
>> Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that falls into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Adrian Zubarev
>> Sent with Airmail
>> 
>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution (swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>) schrieb:
>> 
>>> My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and restrict their use to the object type I am extending as long as everything is in one file via fileprivate. 
>>> 
>>> I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory that contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be able to restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to that common directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate files based on function.
>>> 
>>> I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be using instead?
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Jim Malak
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution at swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20161208/468a28c7/attachment.html>