[swift-evolution] [Accepted] SE-0169: Improve Interaction Between `private` Declarations and Extensions

[Xiaodi Wu]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Apr 20, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 20:40, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
> This makes the private/fileprivate distinction meaningful for extensions.
> I think also bans the use of "private" at global scope for non-nominal
> types or extensions thereof.  A clarifying update to the proposal is in
> order, so developers can better understand the semantics.
>
>
> Wait, hang on, then people have to write 'fileprivate' instead of
> 'private' for top-level typealiases (and functions?).
>
>
> That seems like the correct behavior; private is about members with
> SE-0169. What do you think?
>

...that seems suboptimal, given that the goal has been to make it possible
for people to use `private` more and not less frequently. IMO, there's no
need for `private typealias` at the global level to be prohibited.


> Apart from whether or not that's desirable, it's not backwards-compatible.
>
>
> Very true! It’s an easy thing to migrate, but it’s a source break
> nonetheless. Let’s decide if it’s desirable and bring it up with the core
> team.
>
> - Doug
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170420/c73244b9/attachment.html>