<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="">Exactly, this is pretty much what "protected" does - as much as there are voices against the idea to base access control based on the type, it is actually unevitable in the future IMHO anyway.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'd personally leave the private/fileprivate access levels as they are currently and would focus the efforts on finding a nice way to express the semantics that a certain member is accessible only from within extensions or the type's subtype.</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:50 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</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="">The problem I see with that is that it would introduce orthogonal access levels whereas they have all been hierarchal in nature up to now.<div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 3 Apr 2017, at 21:36, Charles Srstka <<a href="mailto:cocoadev@charlessoft.com" class="">cocoadev@charlessoft.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=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Apr 3, 2017, at 2:28 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Btw, I know what I'm going to propose is a bit crazy, but how about making private visible to extensions even outside the file but in the same module?</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">That’s actually what I suggested in my original post on the topic. My feeling was that it would allow breaking a particularly large type into separate files, thus alleviating the “huge file” problem that Swift has (and which Charlie Monroe brought up as a concern).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It’s still what I’d prefer personally, although I can understand why the core team might want to restrict it to files.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Charles</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>