<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:57 PM Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">> I honestly still think "public, internal, private, local" is a better taxonomy.. It's true that "internal" and "private" aren't automatically ordered relative to each other (and maybe not even "local"), but they're all adjectives (unlike "module" and "file"), and they're not awkward to read or to use in conversation. But both the core team and the list disagree, mainly because (a) it aligns 'private' more closely with other languages, and (b) if you're not thinking about it, more restrictive is better than less. (Both of which I agree are good ideas.)<br>
<br>
If we're not married to "private" being the most private access level, I think there is a word that implies more privacy than "private": "secret". Something that's private is often still shared with trusted people, but something that's secret is very carefully protected indeed. "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead."<br>
<br>
So then our four access levels would be:<br>
<br>
* public<br>
* internal<br>
* private<br>
* secret<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can support that and do like the word 'secret'. I am fine with keeping 'private' the same as it currently is even if it different from other languages (since it already does).</div><div><br></div><div>-Shawn</div></div></div>