<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><br><div>On Oct 2, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Thanks for hoisting this out into its own thread, Jordan. I was hesitant to elaborate more on another access level thread :)<div><br></div><div>I think the change should absolutely be made. Even though the "private" keyword occurs at the file level, the description of the feature in the Swift documentation simply states: "you can mark an extension with an explicit access-level modifier to set a new default access level for all members defined within the extension." To me, that implies that "private extension Foo { func bar() }" should be identical to "extension Foo { private func bar() }", but today it becomes equivalent to "extension Foo { fileprivate func bar() }".</div><div><br></div><div>That seems fundamentally broken, because (1) it's inconsistent, (2) "private extension" and "fileprivate extension" are two ways of saying the same thing, non-intuitively, and (3) there's no way for someone to use the shorthand syntax to take advantage of the new meaning of private within same-file type extensions.</div><div><br></div><div>While I personally never use the shorthand extension access level feature (because I prefer the explicit form, and because of situations like this one), I definitely think it should be consistent for people who do want to use it.</div><div><br></div><div>I wonder how much existing code would be affected by this change. Do people use "private extension" when they really want "fileprivate extension"? I would hope the number of users affected would be few, at least.</div></div></div></blockquote><br><div>I don’t think I’ve ever used “private extension”, but if I did, I’d expect it to <i>not</i> mean “fileprivate extension”.</div><div><br></div><div>- Dave Sweeris </div></body></html>