<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></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 Jun 29, 2016, at 14:12, Xiaodi Wu <<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" class="">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:jordan_rose@apple.com" target="_blank" class="">jordan_rose@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><span class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu <<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez <<a href="mailto:cheyo@masters3d.com" target="_blank" class="">cheyo@masters3d.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
><br class="">
> I know this might be have been brought up before but<br class="">
><br class="">
> why not just disallow the “private" keyword for top level types, extensions etc.<br class="">
><br class="">
> A fixit could change top level `private` to `fileprivate`.<br class="">
><br class="">
> I think this is a little less confusing since effectively this is what is happening in the background.<br class="">
<br class="">
</span>That doesn’t fix anything for inner types, so it’s a lot less important than the rest of the amendment.<br class="">
<br class="">
There actually is an answer to this, which is that the core team expects 'private' to be the common keyword, and therefore it’s better if you can use it at the top level and ignore ‘fileprivate’ altogether in most programs.<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On second thought, wouldn't all of this be inapplicable if `private` literally meant visibility *only* within the current declaration, and neither outside it nor inside any nested types, etc.?</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div></span><div class="">Yes, but that's not very useful:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px" class=""><div class="">public struct Foo {</div><div class=""> private var value: Int = 0</div><div class=""> public func test() {</div><div class=""> print(value) // error</div><div class=""> }</div><div class="">}</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I suppose you could say that nested <i class="">types</i> are different from nested <i class="">functions,</i> but then we start getting complexity in a different direction. And it still doesn't fix the default access within a private type.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Let me offer a principled rule: if I write `private var foo`, then `foo` is invisible at such places within the declaration where writing `private var bar` at the same place would cause `bar` to be visible where `foo` is not or vice versa.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>I’m sorry, I don’t understand. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Stepping back, though, this part of the proposal <i class="">was</i> discussed back when it was first going through, and it was settled (after some disagreement and discussion) that pure lexical scoping was the best choice.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Jordan</div><br class=""></body></html>