Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Daniel Leping via swift-evolution]

-1 will just bring mess and unclearness.

It can work with Java-like approach where a package is a folder. Since we
have no strict decisions for that - please, don't do it.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 21:10 Gonçalo Alvarez Peixoto via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> @Jim
>
> You most certainly offended no one! Quite the opposite. This being an open
> source community, every contribution counts and, imho,  you did nothing but
> to *contribute *to swift's evolution!
>
> Thanks for backing typeprivate proposal. We have been looking for ways to
> restructure our proposal based on all the fine arguments raised by everyone
> during the discussion, however we have not found time to complete it. We
> will definitely keep in touch in the following days. I believe your
> proposal really relates to ours. The real urge is to revisit access level
> controls, if need it be, and create finer grained modifiers for better
> communication.
>
> @Derrick
>
> This being said, the solution might even reduce the number of access
> control modifiers and not just add one more to the pile. I think we all aim
> to have the right amount of modifiers for the right amount of use cases.
> Should they be organised and designed in a way that better conveys their
> intent, then I believe the number will not be the number one problem.
>
> @Tino
>
> I do agree with you. It is sometimes hard to keep track of all the
> proposals/discussions being raised. While I do believe this is an open
> enough forum for everyone to participate in, it can become quite hard to
> have the full spectrum of discussions in sight at first glance.
>
> Best,
> Gonçalo
>
> 2016-12-08 18:51 GMT+00:00 Tino Heth <2...@gmx.de>:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is my first use of this forum. I certainly did not mean to cause
> pain for anyone.
>
>
>
>
>
> I hope I didn't sound as if I was blaming you — imho it is not realistic
> to keep track of the evolution process as it is organised now, so even
> exact repetition is rather common
>
>
>
>
>
> > At Gonzalo's invitation I have looked over the thread for his proposal
> and I am withdrawing my request and backing his with a very heavy +1.
>
>
> This one?
> https://github.com/goncaloalvarez/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/-introduce-typeprivate-access-control-level.md
>
>
>
>
>
> > If I have offended anyone I ask their forgiveness. Since you mentioned
> it I will state that the Xcode approach to project groups is one that I
> have yet to understand the merit of.
>
>
> > Gonzalo: please let me know how I can assist you.
>
>
> I don't think anyone is offended, and imho your offer to Gonzalo is a good
> move (it's just sad that there is no established tool for such
> collaboration)
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> swift-evolution mailing list
>
> swift-evolution@swift.org
>
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
>
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Gonçalo Alvarez Peixoto via swift-evolution]

@Jim

You most certainly offended no one! Quite the opposite. This being an open
source community, every contribution counts and, imho,  you did nothing but
to *contribute *to swift's evolution!

Thanks for backing typeprivate proposal. We have been looking for ways to
restructure our proposal based on all the fine arguments raised by everyone
during the discussion, however we have not found time to complete it. We
will definitely keep in touch in the following days. I believe your
proposal really relates to ours. The real urge is to revisit access level
controls, if need it be, and create finer grained modifiers for better
communication.

@Derrick

This being said, the solution might even reduce the number of access
control modifiers and not just add one more to the pile. I think we all aim
to have the right amount of modifiers for the right amount of use cases.
Should they be organised and designed in a way that better conveys their
intent, then I believe the number will not be the number one problem.

@Tino

I do agree with you. It is sometimes hard to keep track of all the
proposals/discussions being raised. While I do believe this is an open
enough forum for everyone to participate in, it can become quite hard to
have the full spectrum of discussions in sight at first glance.

Best,
Gonçalo

2016-12-08 18:51 GMT+00:00 Tino Heth <2...@gmx.de>:

> Hi Jim,
>
> > This is my first use of this forum. I certainly did not mean to cause
> pain for anyone.
>
> I hope I didn't sound as if I was blaming you — imho it is not realistic
> to keep track of the evolution process as it is organised now, so even
> exact repetition is rather common
>
> > At Gonzalo's invitation I have looked over the thread for his proposal
> and I am withdrawing my request and backing his with a very heavy +1.
> This one? https://github.com/goncaloalvarez/swift-evolution/blob/master/
> proposals/-introduce-typeprivate-access-control-level.md
>
> > If I have offended anyone I ask their forgiveness. Since you mentioned
> it I will state that the Xcode approach to project groups is one that I
> have yet to understand the merit of.
> > Gonzalo: please let me know how I can assist you.
> I don't think anyone is offended, and imho your offer to Gonzalo is a good
> move (it's just sad that there is no established tool for such
> collaboration)
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Tino Heth via swift-evolution]

Hi Jim,

> This is my first use of this forum. I certainly did not mean to cause pain 
> for anyone. 

I hope I didn't sound as if I was blaming you — imho it is not realistic to 
keep track of the evolution process as it is organised now, so even exact 
repetition is rather common

> At Gonzalo's invitation I have looked over the thread for his proposal and I 
> am withdrawing my request and backing his with a very heavy +1. 
This one? 
https://github.com/goncaloalvarez/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/-introduce-typeprivate-access-control-level.md

> If I have offended anyone I ask their forgiveness. Since you mentioned it I 
> will state that the Xcode approach to project groups is one that I have yet 
> to understand the merit of. 
> Gonzalo: please let me know how I can assist you.
I don't think anyone is offended, and imho your offer to Gonzalo is a good move 
(it's just sad that there is no established tool for such collaboration)
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Derrick Ho via swift-evolution]

-1 we don't need any more access modifiers. We already have an excessive
amount: 5
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:55 PM Jim Malak via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> Hi Tino,
> This is my first use of this forum. I certainly did not mean to cause pain
> for anyone.
> At Gonzalo's invitation I have looked over the thread for his proposal and
> I am withdrawing my request and backing his with a very heavy +1.
> The group has done an amazing job with the open source development of
> Swift. Though this email approach may cause some problems, all of you have
> advanced the language tremendously in a very short period of time.
> If I have offended anyone I ask their forgiveness. Since you mentioned it
> I will state that the Xcode approach to project groups is one that I have
> yet to understand the merit of.
> Gonzalo: please let me know how I can assist you.
> - Jim
>
> _
> From: Tino Heth <2...@gmx.de>
> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 12:08 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a
> compliment to fileprivate?
> To: Jim Malak 
> Cc: 
>
>
> I guess it's just coincidence, but this thread about "directoryprivate"
> did start while the thread about "typeprivate" (which ended up as a general
> discussion) is fading away without real results…
>
> To me, this looks like an indication for two* things:
>
> a) Access levels are broken** in Swift 3
>
> b) The tool used for discussion (mailing list) is broken** as well
>
> Right now, I'm in the mood to write a rant about b) (that might change
> until I have time to do so ;-), but returning back to topic, I really don't
> think adding more and more levels with more and more magic words is a bad
> idea.
> Additionally, "directoryprivate" will be really painful due to the way
> Xcode deals with the filesystem (although that might be an argument for
> adding it, as imho Xcode needs improvement in this aspect anyways ;-)
>
> - Tino
>
> * three things to be honest; but the last one would be to controversial
> for a half sentence without explanation
>
> ** actually, I think "broken" is way to hard — but judging from past
> experience, I come to the sad conclusion that provoking statements are
> better to drive discussion ;-)
>
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Jim Malak via swift-evolution]

Hi Tino,
This is my first use of this forum. I certainly did not mean to cause pain for 
anyone.
At Gonzalo's invitation I have looked over the thread for his proposal and I am 
withdrawing my request and backing his with a very heavy +1.
The group has done an amazing job with the open source development of Swift. 
Though this email approach may cause some problems, all of you have advanced 
the language tremendously in a very short period of time.
If I have offended anyone I ask their forgiveness. Since you mentioned it I 
will state that the Xcode approach to project groups is one that I have yet to 
understand the merit of.
Gonzalo: please let me know how I can assist you.
- Jim

_
From: Tino Heth <2...@gmx.de>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?
To: Jim Malak >
Cc: >


I guess it's just coincidence, but this thread about "directoryprivate" did 
start while the thread about "typeprivate" (which ended up as a general 
discussion) is fading away without real results...

To me, this looks like an indication for two* things:

a) Access levels are broken** in Swift 3

b) The tool used for discussion (mailing list) is broken** as well

Right now, I'm in the mood to write a rant about b) (that might change until I 
have time to do so ;-), but returning back to topic, I really don't think 
adding more and more levels with more and more magic words is a bad idea.
Additionally, "directoryprivate" will be really painful due to the way Xcode 
deals with the filesystem (although that might be an argument for adding it, as 
imho Xcode needs improvement in this aspect anyways ;-)

- Tino

* three things to be honest; but the last one would be to controversial for a 
half sentence without explanation

** actually, I think "broken" is way to hard - but judging from past 
experience, I come to the sad conclusion that provoking statements are better 
to drive discussion ;-)

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Jeremy Pereira via swift-evolution]

> On 8 Dec 2016, at 12:52, Aron Lindberg via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> I realise the general opinion here seems to be that we don't want any more 
> changes to the access modifiers and I can understand why, but please take a 
> look at the use case below:
> 
> "fileprivate" is needed for certain things like Equatable since the equatable 
> function might need to know about private properties in a class. Lets say I 
> have two structs:
> 
> struct A {
> ...
> }
> 
> struct B {
> ...
> }
> 
> Both are rather big so I declare each in a separate file (File A, File B), 
> but I need to implement an equals function between these two structs that 
> need access to private properties in both structs. This leaves me with two 
> options:
> 
> a) Move the two structs into one file and use fileprivate and implement the 
> equals function here. The result is one long messy file.
> b) Move the two files into a separate module and use "internal" for the 
> variables I need acces to. This feels like overkill and struct A/B might have 
> dependencies that make this inconvenient.
> 
> Am I missing a more optimal solution here? 

To conform to Equatable, the arguments to == need to have the same type.

However there might be other operators for which you might conceivably want to 
do this. I think the right long term answer to this is submodules and submodule 
visibility. For the present, I would argue that a source file isn’t messy just 
because it is long. So I’d put them in the same file or raise the read 
visibility of the properties the operator depends on to internal.


___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Tino Heth via swift-evolution]

I guess it's just coincidence, but this thread about "directoryprivate" did 
start while the thread about "typeprivate" (which ended up as a general 
discussion) is fading away without real results…

To me, this looks like an indication for two* things:

a) Access levels are broken** in Swift 3

b) The tool used for discussion (mailing list) is broken** as well

Right now, I'm in the mood to write a rant about b) (that might change until I 
have time to do so ;-), but returning back to topic, I really don't think 
adding more and more levels with more and more magic words is a bad idea.
Additionally, "directoryprivate" will be really painful due to the way Xcode 
deals with the filesystem (although that might be an argument for adding it, as 
imho Xcode needs improvement in this aspect anyways ;-)

- Tino

* three things to be honest; but the last one would be to controversial for a 
half sentence without explanation

** actually, I think "broken" is way to hard — but judging from past 
experience, I come to the sad conclusion that provoking statements are better 
to drive discussion ;-)
___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Aron Lindberg via swift-evolution]

It is hard to argue with that :)

I think the problem with more or less all new access level modifiers is that 
while there are legit uses for folderprivate, typeprivate and what else have 
been proposed recently, all of them also allow for some pretty no-legit 
anti-pattern uses as well.

I will go back to my long swift files and fileprivate now ;)

/Aron

> On 8 Dec 2016, at 14.05, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Overkill or not, grouping files into a folder/group + folderprivate smells 
> exactly like a submodule to me. ;) 
> 
> The only thing I’m repeating over and over is that we should fix that open 
> mess and allow protocols to have the same open/public access level as classes 
> have. 
> 
> open protocol from module A is allowed to be conformed to from module B
> public protocol from module A can only be used as an interface in module B
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> 
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 13:52:27, Aron Lindberg (ar...@me.com 
> ) schrieb:
> 
>> I realise the general opinion here seems to be that we don't want any more 
>> changes to the access modifiers and I can understand why, but please take a 
>> look at the use case below: 
>> 
>> "fileprivate" is needed for certain things like Equatable since the 
>> equatable function might need to know about private properties in a class. 
>> Lets say I have two structs: 
>> 
>> struct A { 
>> ... 
>> } 
>> 
>> struct B { 
>> ... 
>> } 
>> 
>> Both are rather big so I declare each in a separate file (File A, File B), 
>> but I need to implement an equals function between these two structs that 
>> need access to private properties in both structs. This leaves me with two 
>> options: 
>> 
>> a) Move the two structs into one file and use fileprivate and implement the 
>> equals function here. The result is one long messy file. 
>> b) Move the two files into a separate module and use "internal" for the 
>> variables I need acces to. This feels like overkill and struct A/B might 
>> have dependencies that make this inconvenient. 
>> 
>> Am I missing a more optimal solution here?  
>> 
>> My point is there are legit use cases of fileprivate there might lead to one 
>> really big file, with several classes. Having a folderprivate access level 
>> would be one possible solution to this. 
>> 
>> > On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.22, Rien via swift-evolution 
>> >  wrote: 
>> >  
>> > Will discprivate be next? and then systemprivate?  
>> >  
>> > -1 
>> >  
>> > Regards, 
>> > Rien 
>> >  
>> > Site: http://balancingrock.nl 
>> > Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com 
>> > Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien 
>> > Project: http://swiftfire.nl 
>> >  
>> >  
>> >  
>> >  
>> >> On 08 Dec 2016, at 12:27, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>> >>  wrote: 
>> >>  
>> >> Personal statement: –1 
>> >>  
>> >>  
>> >>  
>> >>  
>> >> --  
>> >> Adrian Zubarev 
>> >> Sent with Airmail 
>> >>  
>> >> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 12:26:17, Aron Lindberg (ar...@me.com) schrieb: 
>> >>  
>> >>> I think this is a great idea! 
>> >>>  
>> >>> I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho. 
>> >>>  
>>  On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>>   wrote: 
>>   
>>  Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably 
>>  still sleepy.  
>>   
>>   
>>   
>>   
>>  --  
>>  Adrian Zubarev 
>>  Sent with Airmail 
>>   
>>  Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
>>  (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb: 
>>   
>> > You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested 
>> > dictionaryprivate yet. :D 
>> >  
>> > @core-team: See what you have done with >>file<> > typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers.  
>> >  
>> > Instead of just going with 
>> >  
>> > private 
>> > private(file) 
>> >  
>> > // for new one  
>> > private(type) 
>> >  
>> > I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) 
>> > and write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason 
>> > why we have fileprivate now. 
>> >  
>> > Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here. 
>> >  
>> > Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that 
>> > falls into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here. 
>> >  
>> >  
>> >  
>> > --  
>> > Adrian Zubarev 
>> > Sent with Airmail 
>> >  
>> > Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
>> > (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb: 
>> >  
>> >> My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have 
>> >> been exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of 
>> >> protocol-oriented programming and as a way to encapsulate related 
>> 

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Jim Malak via swift-evolution]

I understand. I am not fixed on this approach ether. I do believe that there 
needs to be a controllable layer of  granularity with respect to what is 
exposed inside of an extension. I was used this approach since the fileprivate 
was already there.

I am not looking to make a perceived bad situation worse. I do want to be able 
have encapsulation in an extension that can be shared in a group that is easy 
to define and to perceive. Adrian had mentioned an idea that, if I understood 
it correctly, was based on some modifier to the AC of private.

I can appreciate that what I suggested as a solution may not be well received 
but I would like to elevate this up to the question of: "Is there support in 
the community for a way of having properties and methods marked as only 
accessible between a group of related extensions  and the object type that they 
are extending?"

- Jim
_
From: Saagar Jha >
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?
To: Adrian Zubarev 
>
Cc: swift-evolution 
>, Jim Malak 
>


Did someone ask for more feedback?

Overall, I'm pretty -1 on this proposal. I never really liked the fileprivate 
solution of scope being created to match (in my mind not quite related) file 
system/organizational boundaries of files–but it was the best compromise we 
could come up with at the time (I’m up for improvements, but I fear that it’s 
too late to change now). The issue with directoryprivate/folderprivate is that 
it takes these issues from fileprivate and compounds across many files. With 
one file it’s easy to figure out what’s going on, but once you have a more than 
a few than keeping track of access between them becomes a pain.

Saagar Jha



On Dec 8, 2016, at 4:38 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
> wrote:


As an advice, you should first hear out what the community thinks about the 
idea, before writing anything, because one person might share your idea. Others 
including myself may not like it. Wait for more feedback first. ;)



--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail


Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 13:35:56, Jim Malak 
(jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com) schrieb:

Great. Is there some other steps I should go through or is the next step to 
write a draft proposal?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
http://beryle-lee.com
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc


From: Aron Lindberg >
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:34:06 AM
To: Jim Malak
Cc: Adrian Zubarev; swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?

Since Xcode is not a requirement for Swift development no, I was talking about 
a file system folder.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.30, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
> wrote:

I totally agree.  For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of 
"folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather than 
some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project folder 
that at times can leave on one confused.

My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to decide 
what is a folder. Does that sound ok?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
http://beryle-lee.com
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc


From: Aron Lindberg >
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM
To: Adrian Zubarev
Cc: Jim Malak; swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?

I think this is a great idea!

I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
> wrote:


Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
sleepy.



--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail


Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution]

Overkill or not, grouping files into a folder/group + folderprivate smells 
exactly like a submodule to me. ;)

The only thing I’m repeating over and over is that we should fix that open mess 
and allow protocols to have the same open/public access level as classes have.

open protocol from module A is allowed to be conformed to from module B
public protocol from module A can only be used as an interface in module B


-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 13:52:27, Aron Lindberg (ar...@me.com) schrieb:

I realise the general opinion here seems to be that we don't want any more 
changes to the access modifiers and I can understand why, but please take a 
look at the use case below:  

"fileprivate" is needed for certain things like Equatable since the equatable 
function might need to know about private properties in a class. Lets say I 
have two structs:  

struct A {  
...  
}  

struct B {  
...  
}  

Both are rather big so I declare each in a separate file (File A, File B), but 
I need to implement an equals function between these two structs that need 
access to private properties in both structs. This leaves me with two options:  

a) Move the two structs into one file and use fileprivate and implement the 
equals function here. The result is one long messy file.  
b) Move the two files into a separate module and use "internal" for the 
variables I need acces to. This feels like overkill and struct A/B might have 
dependencies that make this inconvenient.  

Am I missing a more optimal solution here?  

My point is there are legit use cases of fileprivate there might lead to one 
really big file, with several classes. Having a folderprivate access level 
would be one possible solution to this.  

> On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.22, Rien via swift-evolution  
> wrote:  
>  
> Will discprivate be next? and then systemprivate?   
>  
> -1  
>  
> Regards,  
> Rien  
>  
> Site: http://balancingrock.nl  
> Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com  
> Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien  
> Project: http://swiftfire.nl  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>> On 08 Dec 2016, at 12:27, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>>  wrote:  
>>  
>> Personal statement: –1  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> --  
>> Adrian Zubarev  
>> Sent with Airmail  
>>  
>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 12:26:17, Aron Lindberg (ar...@me.com) schrieb:  
>>  
>>> I think this is a great idea!  
>>>  
>>> I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.  
>>>  
 On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
  wrote:  
  
 Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
 sleepy.  
  
  
  
  
 --  
 Adrian Zubarev  
 Sent with Airmail  
  
 Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
 (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb:  
  
> You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested 
> dictionaryprivate yet. :D  
>  
> @core-team: See what you have done with >>file< typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers.  
>  
> Instead of just going with  
>  
> private  
> private(file)  
>  
> // for new one  
> private(type)  
>  
> I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and 
> write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we 
> have fileprivate now.  
>  
> Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.  
>  
> Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that 
> falls into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.  
>  
>  
>  
> --  
> Adrian Zubarev  
> Sent with Airmail  
>  
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
> (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:  
>  
>> My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
>> exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented 
>> programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve 
>> readability and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have 
>> designed. I am able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in 
>> extensions and restrict their use to the object type I am extending as 
>> long as everything is in one file via fileprivate.  
>>  
>> I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a 
>> directory that contains my associated extensions (also in separate 
>> files) and be able to restrict the access of appropriate properties and 
>> methods to that common directory. This would allow the same level 
>> encapsulation as fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize 
>> code into sepereate files based on function.  
>>  
>> I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this 

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Rien via swift-evolution]

My standard reply is that when a type implementation gets this big, it is quite 
possible that the design is sub optimal.

An equate operation between types almost always means that they have something 
in common that can be isolated into its own file which then also includes the 
equate operation.

Regards,
Rien

Site: http://balancingrock.nl
Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien
Project: http://swiftfire.nl




> On 08 Dec 2016, at 13:52, Aron Lindberg  wrote:
> 
> I realise the general opinion here seems to be that we don't want any more 
> changes to the access modifiers and I can understand why, but please take a 
> look at the use case below:
> 
> "fileprivate" is needed for certain things like Equatable since the equatable 
> function might need to know about private properties in a class. Lets say I 
> have two structs:
> 
> struct A {
> ...
> }
> 
> struct B {
> ...
> }
> 
> Both are rather big so I declare each in a separate file (File A, File B), 
> but I need to implement an equals function between these two structs that 
> need access to private properties in both structs. This leaves me with two 
> options:
> 
> a) Move the two structs into one file and use fileprivate and implement the 
> equals function here. The result is one long messy file.
> b) Move the two files into a separate module and use "internal" for the 
> variables I need acces to. This feels like overkill and struct A/B might have 
> dependencies that make this inconvenient.
> 
> Am I missing a more optimal solution here? 
> 
> My point is there are legit use cases of fileprivate there might lead to one 
> really big file, with several classes. Having a folderprivate access level 
> would be one possible solution to this.
> 
>> On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.22, Rien via swift-evolution 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Will discprivate be next? and then systemprivate? 
>> 
>> -1
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Rien
>> 
>> Site: http://balancingrock.nl
>> Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
>> Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien
>> Project: http://swiftfire.nl
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 08 Dec 2016, at 12:27, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Personal statement: –1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Adrian Zubarev
>>> Sent with Airmail
>>> 
>>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 12:26:17, Aron Lindberg (ar...@me.com) schrieb:
>>> 
 I think this is a great idea!
 
 I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.
 
> On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
> sleepy. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> 
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
> (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb:
> 
>> You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested 
>> dictionaryprivate yet. :D
>> 
>> @core-team: See what you have done with >>file<> typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers. 
>> 
>> Instead of just going with
>> 
>> private
>> private(file)
>> 
>> // for new one
>> private(type)
>> 
>> I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) 
>> and write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why 
>> we have fileprivate now.
>> 
>> Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.
>> 
>> Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that 
>> falls into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Adrian Zubarev
>> Sent with Airmail
>> 
>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
>> (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
>> 
>>> My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
>>> exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented 
>>> programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve 
>>> readability and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have 
>>> designed. I am able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in 
>>> extensions and restrict their use to the object type I am extending as 
>>> long as everything is in one file via fileprivate. 
>>> 
>>> I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a 
>>> directory that contains my associated extensions  (also in separate 
>>> files) and be able to restrict the access  of appropriate properties 
>>> and  methods to that common directory. This would allow the same level 
>>> encapsulation as fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize 
>>> code into sepereate files based on function.
>>> 
>>> I did not see this in the commonly rejected list 

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Saagar Jha via swift-evolution]

Did someone ask for more feedback?

Overall, I'm pretty -1 on this proposal. I never really liked the fileprivate 
solution of scope being created to match (in my mind not quite related) file 
system/organizational boundaries of files–but it was the best compromise we 
could come up with at the time (I’m up for improvements, but I fear that it’s 
too late to change now). The issue with directoryprivate/folderprivate is that 
it takes these issues from fileprivate and compounds across many files. With 
one file it’s easy to figure out what’s going on, but once you have a more than 
a few than keeping track of access between them becomes a pain.

Saagar Jha



> On Dec 8, 2016, at 4:38 AM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> As an advice, you should first hear out what the community thinks about the 
> idea, before writing anything, because one person might share your idea. 
> Others including myself may not like it. Wait for more feedback first. ;)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> 
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 13:35:56, Jim Malak (jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com 
> ) schrieb:
> 
>> Great. Is there some other steps I should go through or is the next step to 
>> write a draft proposal?
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Jim Malak
>> Director
>> Beryle & Lee, Inc,
>> O +1-330-818-2600
>> M +1-234-716-2658
>> F +1-330-818-2560
>> 
>> email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com 
>> http://beryle-lee.com 
>> http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak 
>> https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc 
>> From: Aron Lindberg 
>> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:34:06 AM
>> To: Jim Malak
>> Cc: Adrian Zubarev; swift-evolution@swift.org
>> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
>> compliment to fileprivate?
>>  
>> Since Xcode is not a requirement for Swift development no, I was talking 
>> about a file system folder.
>> 
>>> On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.30, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I totally agree.  For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of 
>>> "folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather 
>>> than some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project 
>>> folder that at times can leave on one confused.
>>> 
>>> My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to 
>>> decide what is a folder. Does that sound ok?
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Jim Malak
>>> Director
>>> Beryle & Lee, Inc,
>>> O +1-330-818-2600
>>> M +1-234-716-2658
>>> F +1-330-818-2560
>>> 
>>> email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com 
>>> http://beryle-lee.com 
>>> http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak 
>>> https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc 
>>> 
>>> From: Aron Lindberg >
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM
>>> To: Adrian Zubarev
>>> Cc: Jim Malak; swift-evolution@swift.org 
>>> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
>>> compliment to fileprivate?
>>>  
>>> I think this is a great idea!
>>> 
>>> I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.
>>> 
 On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
 > wrote:
 
 Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
 sleepy. 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Adrian Zubarev
 Sent with Airmail
 
 Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
 (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com ) 
 schrieb:
 
> You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested 
> dictionaryprivate yet. :D
> 
> @core-team: See what you have done with >>file< typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers. 
> 
> Instead of just going with
> 
> private
> private(file)
> 
> // for new one
> private(type)
> I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and 
> write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we 
> have fileprivate now.
> 
> Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.
> 
> Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that 
> falls into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> 
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
> (swift-evolution@swift.org ) schrieb:
> 
>> 

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Aron Lindberg via swift-evolution]

I realise the general opinion here seems to be that we don't want any more 
changes to the access modifiers and I can understand why, but please take a 
look at the use case below:

"fileprivate" is needed for certain things like Equatable since the equatable 
function might need to know about private properties in a class. Lets say I 
have two structs:

struct A {
...
}

struct B {
...
}

Both are rather big so I declare each in a separate file (File A, File B), but 
I need to implement an equals function between these two structs that need 
access to private properties in both structs. This leaves me with two options:

a) Move the two structs into one file and use fileprivate and implement the 
equals function here. The result is one long messy file.
b) Move the two files into a separate module and use "internal" for the 
variables I need acces to. This feels like overkill and struct A/B might have 
dependencies that make this inconvenient.

Am I missing a more optimal solution here? 

My point is there are legit use cases of fileprivate there might lead to one 
really big file, with several classes. Having a folderprivate access level 
would be one possible solution to this.

> On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.22, Rien via swift-evolution  
> wrote:
> 
> Will discprivate be next? and then systemprivate? 
> 
> -1
> 
> Regards,
> Rien
> 
> Site: http://balancingrock.nl
> Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
> Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien
> Project: http://swiftfire.nl
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 08 Dec 2016, at 12:27, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Personal statement: –1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Adrian Zubarev
>> Sent with Airmail
>> 
>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 12:26:17, Aron Lindberg (ar...@me.com) schrieb:
>> 
>>> I think this is a great idea!
>>> 
>>> I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.
>>> 
 On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
  wrote:
 
 Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
 sleepy. 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Adrian Zubarev
 Sent with Airmail
 
 Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
 (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb:
 
> You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested 
> dictionaryprivate yet. :D
> 
> @core-team: See what you have done with >>file< typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers. 
> 
> Instead of just going with
> 
> private
> private(file)
> 
> // for new one
> private(type)
> 
> I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and 
> write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we 
> have fileprivate now.
> 
> Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.
> 
> Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that 
> falls into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> 
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
> (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
> 
>> My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
>> exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented 
>> programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve 
>> readability and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have 
>> designed. I am able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in 
>> extensions and restrict their use to the object type I am extending as 
>> long as everything is in one file via fileprivate. 
>> 
>> I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a 
>> directory that contains my associated extensions  (also in separate 
>> files) and be able to restrict the access  of appropriate properties and 
>>  methods to that common directory. This would allow the same level 
>> encapsulation as fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize 
>> code into sepereate files based on function.
>> 
>> I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this 
>> is something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write 
>> up a proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I 
>> should be using instead?
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> Jim Malak
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
 
 ___
 swift-evolution mailing list
 swift-evolution@swift.org
 https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution]

-1 from me.

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jim Malak via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:

> Ok, thanks
>
> - Jim
> --
> *From:* Adrian Zubarev 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:38:22 AM
> *To:* Jim Malak
> *Cc:* swift-evolution@swift.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate
> as a compliment to fileprivate?
>
>
> As an advice, you should first hear out what the community thinks about
> the idea, before writing anything, because one person might share your
> idea. Others including myself may not like it. Wait for more feedback
> first. ;)
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 13:35:56, Jim Malak (jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com)
> schrieb:
>
> Great. Is there some other steps I should go through or is the next step
> to write a draft proposal?
>
> Kind regards,
> Jim Malak
> Director
> Beryle & Lee, Inc,
> O +1-330-818-2600 <(330)%20818-2600>
> M +1-234-716-2658 <(234)%20716-2658>
> F +1-330-818-2560 <(330)%20818-2560>
>
> email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
> http://beryle-lee.com
> http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
> https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc
>
> --
> *From:* Aron Lindberg 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:34:06 AM
> *To:* Jim Malak
> *Cc:* Adrian Zubarev; swift-evolution@swift.org
> *Subject:* Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate
> as a compliment to fileprivate?
>
> Since Xcode is not a requirement for Swift development no, I was talking
> about a file system folder.
>
> On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.30, Jim Malak via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> I totally agree.  For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of
> "folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather
> than some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project
> folder that at times can leave on one confused.
>
> My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to
> decide what is a folder. Does that sound ok?
>
> Kind regards,
> Jim Malak
> Director
> Beryle & Lee, Inc,
> O +1-330-818-2600 <(330)%20818-2600>
> M +1-234-716-2658 <(234)%20716-2658>
> F +1-330-818-2560 <(330)%20818-2560>
>
> email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
> http://beryle-lee.com
> http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
> https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc
>
> --
> *From:* Aron Lindberg 
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM
> *To:* Adrian Zubarev
> *Cc:* Jim Malak; swift-evolution@swift.org
> *Subject:* Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate
> as a compliment to fileprivate?
>
> I think this is a great idea!
>
> I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.
>
> On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
>
> Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still
> sleepy.
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev (
> adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb:
>
> You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested
> dictionaryprivate yet. :D
> --
>
> @core-team: See what you have done with >>file< perprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers. [image:
> facepalm]
>
> Instead of just going with
>
> private
> private(file)
>
> // for new one
> private(type)
>
> I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and
> write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we
> have fileprivate now.
> --
>
> Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.
>
> Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that falls
> into the topic of *submodules*. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.
>
>
> --
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
>
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution (
> swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
>
> My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been
> exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented
> programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability
> and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am
> able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and
> restrict their use to the object type I am extending as long as everything
> is in one file via fileprivate.
>
> I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory
> that contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be
> able to restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to that
> common directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as
> fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate
> files based on function.
>
> I did 

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Jim Malak via swift-evolution]

Ok, thanks

- Jim

From: Adrian Zubarev 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:38:22 AM
To: Jim Malak
Cc: swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?


As an advice, you should first hear out what the community thinks about the 
idea, before writing anything, because one person might share your idea. Others 
including myself may not like it. Wait for more feedback first. ;)


--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail


Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 13:35:56, Jim Malak 
(jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com) schrieb:

Great. Is there some other steps I should go through or is the next step to 
write a draft proposal?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
http://beryle-lee.com
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc


From: Aron Lindberg 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:34:06 AM
To: Jim Malak
Cc: Adrian Zubarev; swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?

Since Xcode is not a requirement for Swift development no, I was talking about 
a file system folder.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.30, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
> wrote:

I totally agree.  For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of 
"folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather than 
some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project folder 
that at times can leave on one confused.

My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to decide 
what is a folder. Does that sound ok?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
http://beryle-lee.com
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc


From: Aron Lindberg >
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM
To: Adrian Zubarev
Cc: Jim Malak; swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?

I think this is a great idea!

I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
> wrote:


Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
sleepy.



--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail


Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
(adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) 
schrieb:

You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate 
yet. :D



@core-team: See what you have done with >>file) schrieb:

My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented programming 
and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability and 
maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am able to 
encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and restrict their 
use to the object type I am extending as long as everything is in one file via 
fileprivate.

I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory that 
contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be able to 
restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to that common 
directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as fileprivate with 
the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate files based on 
function.

I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is 
something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a 
proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be using 
instead?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak


___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution]

As an advice, you should first hear out what the community thinks about the 
idea, before writing anything, because one person might share your idea. Others 
including myself may not like it. Wait for more feedback first. ;)



-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 13:35:56, Jim Malak (jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com) schrieb:

Great. Is there some other steps I should go through or is the next step to 
write a draft proposal?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
http://beryle-lee.com
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc

From: Aron Lindberg 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:34:06 AM
To: Jim Malak
Cc: Adrian Zubarev; swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?
 
Since Xcode is not a requirement for Swift development no, I was talking about 
a file system folder.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.30, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
 wrote:

I totally agree.  For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of 
"folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather than 
some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project folder 
that at times can leave on one confused.

My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to decide 
what is a folder. Does that sound ok?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
http://beryle-lee.com
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc

From: Aron Lindberg 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM
To: Adrian Zubarev
Cc: Jim Malak; swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?
 
I think this is a great idea!

I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
 wrote:

Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
sleepy. 




-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
(adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb:

You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate 
yet. :D

@core-team: See what you have done with >>file<

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Jim Malak via swift-evolution]

Great. Is there some other steps I should go through or is the next step to 
write a draft proposal?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
http://beryle-lee.com
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc


From: Aron Lindberg 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 7:34:06 AM
To: Jim Malak
Cc: Adrian Zubarev; swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?

Since Xcode is not a requirement for Swift development no, I was talking about 
a file system folder.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.30, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
> wrote:

I totally agree.  For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of 
"folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather than 
some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project folder 
that at times can leave on one confused.

My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to decide 
what is a folder. Does that sound ok?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
http://beryle-lee.com
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc


From: Aron Lindberg >
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM
To: Adrian Zubarev
Cc: Jim Malak; swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?

I think this is a great idea!

I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
> wrote:


Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I'm probably still 
sleepy.



--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail


Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
(adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) 
schrieb:

You haven't seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate 
yet. :D



@core-team: See what you have done with >>file) schrieb:

My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented programming 
and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability and 
maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am able to 
encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and restrict their 
use to the object type I am extending as long as everything is in one file via 
fileprivate.

I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory that 
contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be able to 
restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to that common 
directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as fileprivate with 
the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate files based on 
function.

I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is 
something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a 
proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be using 
instead?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak


___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Aron Lindberg via swift-evolution]

Since Xcode is not a requirement for Swift development no, I was talking about 
a file system folder.

> On 8 Dec 2016, at 13.30, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> I totally agree.  For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of 
> "folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather 
> than some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project 
> folder that at times can leave on one confused.
> 
> My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to 
> decide what is a folder. Does that sound ok?
> 
> Kind regards, 
> Jim Malak 
> Director 
> Beryle & Lee, Inc, 
> O +1-330-818-2600 
> M +1-234-716-2658 
> F +1-330-818-2560 
> 
> email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com  
> http://beryle-lee.com  
> http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak  
> https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc 
> From: Aron Lindberg 
> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM
> To: Adrian Zubarev
> Cc: Jim Malak; swift-evolution@swift.org
> Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
> compliment to fileprivate?
>  
> I think this is a great idea!
> 
> I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.
> 
>> On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
>> sleepy. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Adrian Zubarev
>> Sent with Airmail
>> 
>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
>> (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com ) 
>> schrieb:
>> 
>>> You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested 
>>> dictionaryprivate yet. :D
>>> 
>>> @core-team: See what you have done with >>file<>> typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers. 
>>> 
>>> Instead of just going with
>>> 
>>> private
>>> private(file)
>>> 
>>> // for new one   
>>> private(type)
>>> I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and 
>>> write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we 
>>> have fileprivate now.
>>> 
>>> Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.
>>> 
>>> Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that falls 
>>> into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Adrian Zubarev
>>> Sent with Airmail
>>> 
>>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
>>> (swift-evolution@swift.org ) schrieb:
>>> 
 My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
 exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented 
 programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve 
 readability and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have 
 designed. I am able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in 
 extensions and restrict their use to the object type I am extending as 
 long as everything is in one file via fileprivate. 
 
 I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory 
 that contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be 
 able to restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to 
 that common directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as 
 fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate 
 files based on function.
 
 I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is 
 something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a 
 proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be 
 using instead?
 
 Kind regards,
 Jim Malak
 
 
 ___
 swift-evolution mailing list
 swift-evolution@swift.org 
 https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> swift-evolution mailing list
>> swift-evolution@swift.org 
>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution 
>> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Jim Malak via swift-evolution]

I totally agree.  For clarity, are we in agreement that the definition of 
"folder" is the underlying file system's implementation of a folder rather than 
some metadata setting? I am thinking of how Xcode as a view of project folder 
that at times can leave on one confused.

My preference is to keep it simple, to use the underlying file system to decide 
what is a folder. Does that sound ok?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak
Director
Beryle & Lee, Inc,
O +1-330-818-2600
M +1-234-716-2658
F +1-330-818-2560

email/Skype: jim.ma...@beryle-lee.com
http://beryle-lee.com
http://linkedin.com/in/jamesmalak
https://www.facebook.com/BeryleLeeInc


From: Aron Lindberg 
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 6:26:10 AM
To: Adrian Zubarev
Cc: Jim Malak; swift-evolution@swift.org
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?

I think this is a great idea!

I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
> wrote:


Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I'm probably still 
sleepy.



--
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail


Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
(adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) 
schrieb:

You haven't seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate 
yet. :D



@core-team: See what you have done with >>file) schrieb:

My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented programming 
and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability and 
maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am able to 
encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and restrict their 
use to the object type I am extending as long as everything is in one file via 
fileprivate.

I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory that 
contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be able to 
restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to that common 
directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as fileprivate with 
the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate files based on 
function.

I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is 
something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a 
proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be using 
instead?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak


___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Rien via swift-evolution]

Will discprivate be next? and then systemprivate? 

-1

Regards,
Rien

Site: http://balancingrock.nl
Blog: http://swiftrien.blogspot.com
Github: http://github.com/Swiftrien
Project: http://swiftfire.nl




> On 08 Dec 2016, at 12:27, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Personal statement: –1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> 
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 12:26:17, Aron Lindberg (ar...@me.com) schrieb:
> 
>> I think this is a great idea!
>> 
>> I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.
>> 
>>> On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
>>> sleepy. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Adrian Zubarev
>>> Sent with Airmail
>>> 
>>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
>>> (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb:
>>> 
 You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested 
 dictionaryprivate yet. :D
 
 @core-team: See what you have done with >>file<>>> typerprivate, typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers. 
 
 Instead of just going with
 
 private
 private(file)
 
 // for new one
 private(type)
 
 I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and 
 write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we 
 have fileprivate now.
 
 Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.
 
 Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that falls 
 into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.
 
 
 
 -- 
 Adrian Zubarev
 Sent with Airmail
 
 Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
 (swift-evolution@swift.org) schrieb:
 
> My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
> exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented 
> programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve 
> readability and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have 
> designed. I am able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in 
> extensions and restrict their use to the object type I am extending as 
> long as everything is in one file via fileprivate. 
> 
> I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory 
> that contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be 
> able to restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to 
> that common directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as 
> fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize code into 
> sepereate files based on function.
> 
> I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is 
> something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up 
> a proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should 
> be using instead?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Jim Malak
> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution]

Personal statement: –1



-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 12:26:17, Aron Lindberg (ar...@me.com) schrieb:

I think this is a great idea!

I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.

On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
 wrote:

Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
sleepy. 




-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
(adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb:

You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate 
yet. :D

@core-team: See what you have done with >>file<

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Aron Lindberg via swift-evolution]

I think this is a great idea!

I would prefer calling it folderprivate tho.

> On 8 Dec 2016, at 08.29, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution 
>  wrote:
> 
> Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
> sleepy. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adrian Zubarev
> Sent with Airmail
> 
> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
> (adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com ) 
> schrieb:
> 
>> You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate 
>> yet. :D
>> 
>> @core-team: See what you have done with >>file<> typepublic all these requests for new access modifiers. 
>> 
>> Instead of just going with
>> 
>> private
>> private(file)
>> 
>> // for new one   
>> private(type)
>> I know there would be some people that would forget about (file/type) and 
>> write only private everywhere, which is probably the main reason why we have 
>> fileprivate now.
>> 
>> Anyways let’s be a little more constructive here.
>> 
>> Hi Jim, regarding your request, it feels like this is something that falls 
>> into the topic of submodules. :) Correct me if I’m wrong here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Adrian Zubarev
>> Sent with Airmail
>> 
>> Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 07:50:07, Jim Malak via swift-evolution 
>> (swift-evolution@swift.org ) schrieb:
>> 
>>> My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
>>> exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented 
>>> programming and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability 
>>> and maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am 
>>> able to encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and 
>>> restrict their use to the object type I am extending as long as everything 
>>> is in one file via fileprivate. 
>>> 
>>> I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory 
>>> that contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be 
>>> able to restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to that 
>>> common directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as 
>>> fileprivate with the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate 
>>> files based on function.
>>> 
>>> I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is 
>>> something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a 
>>> proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be 
>>> using instead?
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Jim Malak
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> swift-evolution mailing list
>>> swift-evolution@swift.org
>>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>> 
> 
> 
> ___
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution@swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution]

Whoops I meant directoryprivate not dictionaryprivate. I’m probably still 
sleepy.



-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 8. Dezember 2016 um 08:18:24, Adrian Zubarev 
(adrian.zuba...@devandartist.com) schrieb:

You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate 
yet. :D

@core-team: See what you have done with >>file

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Jim Malak via swift-evolution]

Hi Adrian,

Yes, submodule would describe it.

- Jim

_
From: Adrian Zubarev 
>
Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2016 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a 
compliment to fileprivate?
To: Jim Malak >
Cc: >



You haven't seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate 
yet. :D



@core-team: See what you have done with >>file) schrieb:

My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented programming 
and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability and 
maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am able to 
encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and restrict their 
use to the object type I am extending as long as everything is in one file via 
fileprivate.

I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory that 
contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be able to 
restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to that common 
directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as fileprivate with 
the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate files based on 
function.

I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is 
something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a 
proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be using 
instead?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak


___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution


___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Re: [swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution]

You haven’t seen this in the list because no one requested dictionaryprivate 
yet. :D

@core-team: See what you have done with >>file

[swift-evolution] Any consideration for directoryprivate as a compliment to fileprivate?

[Jim Malak via swift-evolution]

My apologies up front if I am going about this incorrectly. I have been 
exploring extensions in Swift 3 both as a part of protocol-oriented programming 
and as a way to encapsulate related code to improve readability and 
maintainablity of otherwise more complex classes I have designed. I am able to 
encapsulate methods and calculated properties in extensions and restrict their 
use to the object type I am extending as long as everything is in one file via 
fileprivate.

I would like to be able to have my class or structure file in a directory that 
contains my associated extensions  (also in separate files) and be able to 
restrict the access  of appropriate properties and  methods to that common 
directory. This would allow the same level encapsulation as fileprivate with 
the benifit of being able to organize code into sepereate files based on 
function.

I did not see this in the commonly rejected list but am unsure if this is 
something that is out of scope for 4.0. Is this something I can write up a 
proposal for? Is there some other approach that I missed that I should be using 
instead?

Kind regards,
Jim Malak


___
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution