<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=""><div class="">Updated in <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/396" class="">https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/396</a>. Thanks again, everyone!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Jordan</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 29, 2016, at 16:51, Jordan Rose <<a href="mailto:jordan_rose@apple.com" class="">jordan_rose@apple.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I just attended a core team meeting where this whole thing was discussed, and will update our <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/383" class="">amendment</a> tonight. But in short:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- The default access level will be 'internal' everywhere*. The compiler will not warn if the access-as-written is broader than necessary. <i class="">Motivation: it should be possible to design a type's API as if it had more access than it currently does.</i></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">* except in extensions, see below</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- The complicated "rule 2" from the amendment stands, but possibly in a form that isn't specific to 'fileprivate':</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">A non-private method, initializer, subscript, property, or typealias may still have a type that references `private` declarations if (1) the non-private declaration is a member of a private type, and (2) all referenced `private` declarations are defined within an enclosing lexical scope. That is, it is legal for a non-private member within a `private` type to have a type that is formally `private` if it would be legal for a `private` declaration in the parent scope to have that type.</blockquote></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As Xiaodi pointed out, this could be even broader, to say that an internal member may reference a fileprivate type if the member is itself defined within a fileprivate type, because it's still safe. That would look like this:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">A member may not have a type that references any declarations that aren't accessible wherever the member is accessible.</blockquote></blockquote><br class=""><div class="">I'm concerned about that being <i class="">too</i> permissive, though. I still want this to be considered an error:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div class="">fileprivate struct Foo {</div><div class=""> fileprivate typealias Bar = Int</div><div class=""> internal func baz() -> Bar { … }</div><div class="">}</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>- An access modifier on an extension has been ruled to indicate the desired <i class="">scope,</i> not the desired <i class="">access.</i> Therefore, members within a `private extension` will be `fileprivate`. (We're only really getting away with this because we don't allow extensions anywhere but at the top level, though if we had nested extensions we'd probably consider them scoped anyway.)<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- We are not looking at renaming either 'fileprivate' or 'private' for Swift 3.<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- All this has been ruled not to need a formal review.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks everyone for getting us to this point. It's definitely different from what I would have come up with on my own or just collaborating with Robert, so you can all count yourselves as contributors to this one. :-)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Jordan<br class=""><br class=""><div class="">P.S. If you see further issues here I'd still like to hear them; if you're unclear on any points after I've updated the <a href="https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/383" class="">pull request</a>, I'm happy to go over them again.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>