<div dir="ltr"><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"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
<br>
> On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez <<a href="mailto:cheyo@masters3d.com">cheyo@masters3d.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I know this might be have been brought up before but<br>
><br>
> why not just disallow the “private" keyword for top level types, extensions etc.<br>
><br>
> A fixit could change top level `private` to `fileprivate`.<br>
><br>
> I think this is a little less confusing since effectively this is what is happening in the background.<br>
<br>
</span>That doesn’t fix anything for inner types, so it’s a lot less important than the rest of the amendment.<br>
<br>
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></blockquote><div><br></div><div>FWIW, the text of SE-0025 itself makes no proposal about `private` as an access level for types (only, strangely, nested types).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Jordan<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
swift-evolution mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>