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

[Douglas Gregor]

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 3:39 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 20, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Douglas Gregor <dgregor at apple.com <mailto:dgregor at apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 20, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com <mailto:jordan_rose at apple.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 20:40, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto: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.
> 
> Yeah, I see no reason for this to change the behavior of private extensions to be more restrictive than before.

So you’re okay with:

	private extension X {
	  func foo() { }
	}

being equivalent to

	extension X {
	  fileprivate func foo() { }
	}

rather than

	extension X {
	  private func foo() { }
	}

?

That seems unintuitive at best.

	- Doug


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170420/c68ea8b8/attachment.html>