[swift-evolution] Fix "private extension" (was "Public Access Modifier Respected in Type Definition")

Xiaodi Wu xiaodi.wu at gmail.com
Sat Oct 7 12:23:11 CDT 2017

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:21 Jose Cheyo Jimenez <cheyo at masters3d.com> wrote:

> On Oct 7, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> This, I think, is the most persuasive argument available here; it provides
> a concrete use case to justify why one design is superior to the other.
> open extension do not exist either. :)

That could be fixed too then.

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:26 David Hart via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> One argument: without this fix, private is the only access level for which
>> we have no means to easily and implicitly apply an access level to a group
>> of members. And it bums me to have to explicitly type private on ever
>> single member to achieve the same result as I can with any other access
>> level.
> In the same way that we need to be explicit about open in extension
> members or public in public type members; the lowest access version of
> scope private needs to also be explicit in private extension members and
> top level private concrete type members.
> The premise of 169 was never about creating a new version of scope private
> that could only be used in extensions. It just relaxed the rules for
> explicit private extension members.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20171007/c3bd99c2/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list