<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:46, Ross O'Brien <<a href="mailto:narrativium+swift@gmail.com" class="">narrativium+swift@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Well, several prominent voices seem to think that 'private' is "intuitively obvious" when it refers to declaration-level scope, so I didn't argue that point. I still happen to disagree; I would add 'privatetodeclaration' to 'privatetomodule' and 'privatetofile', which would solve that conversational point: "These properties are private to the declaration".</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Alternatively: 'fileaccessible', 'moduleaccessible', 'declarationaccessible'? (Does that confuse code accessibility with such things as UIAccessibility?)</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Just on this point, yes, we've been advised to avoid the word "accessibility" in the past. We're deliberately using "access control" and "access"; "accessible" is kind of on the line.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>(We're <i class="">not</i> using "visible" because whether something is "visible" depends on the use site<i class="">,</i> whereas access level is a characteristic of the declaration only.)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Jordan</div><div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>