[swift-evolution] private extension

[Xiaodi Wu]

Agree, but again, I tried, and the answer was no, it’s not considered a bug
and cannot be fixed without independent discussion.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 16:51 David Hart <david at hartbit.com> wrote:

> The last thing I want is to launch into a new round of discussions. I am
> just hoping it can be considered as a straight bug that can be fixed
> without any discussion.
>
>
> On 9 Aug 2017, at 23:47, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I brought this up after SE-0169, but it was deemed to be a separate issue
> and any further consideration was declined. Let’s not initiate another
> round of access control discussions.
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 16:31 David Hart via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>
>> Actually, I think this is this way only as a relic from the original
>> private/fileprivate proposal. Swift 3’s private has no meaning as an
>> extension modifier, so it was made to alias to fileprivate. But
>> since SE-0169 modified private’s meaning so that it would make sense as
>> an extension modifier, I think we should fix this.
>>
>> On 9 Aug 2017, at 23:22, David Hart via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> That behaviour was never explicitly mentioned in SE-0169 but I agree its
>> confusing. But I’m also fairly sure the only window to do anything about it
>> is Swift 4. Everybody is really worn down by those access level discussions.
>>
>> For illustration, Vladimir is confused that:
>>
>> private extension Foo {
>>     func foo() {}
>> }
>>
>> is equivalent to:
>>
>> fileprivate extension Foo {
>>     func foo() {}
>> }
>>
>> making it accessible to another type in the same file:
>>
>> struct Bar {
>>     func bar(foo: Foo) {
>>         foo.foo()
>>     }
>> }
>>
>> Aren't access levels on extensions supposed to define the default access
>> level of the members of the extension?Is this a bug then?
>>
>> On 9 Aug 2017, at 21:18, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution <
>> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>>
>> Could someone remind please, was it decided to stick with 'private
>> extension' means actually fileprivate access level for members declared in
>> such extension or this could be discussed for Swift5?
>>
>> Currently, when private members are visible in type/extensions of that
>> type in the same file, IMO there is no sense to treat 'private extension'
>> as 'fileprivate extension', it is reasonable to group some private members
>> of type into extension without making them fileprivate, and such members
>> can be used from the type/other extensions.
>>
>> And also this is a huge inconsistency in my opinion: all other access
>> modifiers 'work' as expected for extensions, but only 'private extension'
>> means not what written, very surprising for one who don't expect this.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170809/74ba8361/attachment.html>