[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0169: Improve Interaction Between private Declarations and Extensions
jhull at gbis.com
Fri Apr 7 07:37:27 CDT 2017
I think that is why he is saying (and I agree), that ‘fileprivate’ needs to be the soft-default. That way private will mean something.
His point that this gets rid of the primary use-case of ‘private’ (over ‘fileprivate’) is also extremely relevant.
> On Apr 7, 2017, at 4:51 AM, Gwendal Roué via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> Le 7 avr. 2017 à 13:44, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> a écrit :
>> No. I believe it makes the language worse, not better. It doesn’t address the real problems with access control. The largest problem is the inability to form scopes between files and the entire module. The problem with `fileprivate` and `private` is a naming problem, not a semantics problem.
> This is the base of your argument, and I think it is wrong, considering that code is a living matter, not a static one.
> Too many properties initially declared as `private` have to be declared `fileprivate` later, because the code is evolving. And this change is usually performed just to tame a compiler error.
> This is why the current private/fileprivate situation is actually a semantics problem. Private is not stable enough to mean anything.
> Gwendal Roué
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution