Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 9:48, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > Cool. FWIW, even in such a world, I wonder if the conformance needs to be > regarded as `fileprivate`: > > In all cases where a private protocol is visible and conformance can be > declared, the protocol's access level would be-- > > - effecti

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Jordan Rose wrote: >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 23:34, John McCall > > wrote: >> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> [Resending with fewer recipients] >>> >>> On

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Cool. FWIW, even in such a world, I wonder if the conformance needs to be regarded as `fileprivate`: In all cases where a private protocol is visible and conformance can be declared, the protocol's access level would be-- - effectively fileprivate (if both protocol and conformance are declared to

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 23:34, John McCall wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> [Resending with fewer recipients] >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Jordan Rose > > wrote: >> U

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Sent from my iPad > On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote: > > >> Le 30 juin 2016 à 01:10, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> a écrit : >> >> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 6:07 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 29 Jun 2016, at 22:15, Jordan Ros

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > wrote: > > [Resending with fewer recipients] > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > Updated in https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/396 >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> Le 30 juin 2016 à 01:10, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > a écrit : > > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 6:07 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 Jun 2016, at 22:15, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >>> wrote: >>> >>> There actually is an answer to this, which is th

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

[Resending with fewer recipients] On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > Updated in https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/396. Thanks > again, everyone! > As usual, a thoughtful result from the core team. Curious, though, where does the following statement come into play?

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Updated in https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/396 . Thanks again, everyone! Jordan > On Jun 29, 2016, at 16:51, Jordan Rose wrote: > > I just attended a core team meeting where this whole thing was discussed, and > will update our

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Sent from my iPad > On Jun 29, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > > I just attended a core team meeting where this whole thing was discussed, and > will update our amendment tonight. But in short: > > - The default access level will be 'internal' everywhere*. The compiler will > not war

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 17:04, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > [Resending with fewer recipients due to list rules.] > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > I just attended a core team meeting where this whole thing was discussed, and > will update our a

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

I just attended a core team meeting where this whole thing was discussed, and will update our amendment tonight. But in short: - The default access level will be 'internal' everywhere*. The compiler will not warn if the access-as-written is br

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

[Resending with fewer recipients due to list rules.] On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > I just attended a core team meeting where this whole thing was discussed, > and will update our amendment > tonight. But in short: > > -

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:07 PM, David Hart wrote: > > >> On 29 Jun 2016, at 22:15, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> 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 a

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 6:07 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On 29 Jun 2016, at 22:15, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> 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

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Matthew Johnson >> wrote: >> >>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On 29 Jun 2016, at 22:15, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > wrote: > > 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 pr

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Matthew Johnson >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Matthew Johnson >> wrote: >> >>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Matthew Johnson >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:51 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Xiaodi Wu > wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Xiaodi Wu >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Johnson >> wrote: >> >>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Matthew Johnson >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Johnson >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Johnson >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >>> >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:33 PM, Michael Peternell via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> Am 30.06.2016 um 00:17 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> : >> >> Here is the problem: >> >> ``` >> private struct Foo { >> /* private */ struct Bar { >>// it doesn't matter what you write in her

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < >> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jor

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Johnson >> wrote: >> >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Michael Peternell > wrote: > > > Am 29.06.2016 um 23:57 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>: > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:4

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Johnson >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Michael Peternell via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > Am 30.06.2016 um 00:17 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org>: > > > > Here is the problem: > > > > ``` > > private struct Foo { > > /* private */ struct

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> Am 30.06.2016 um 00:17 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > : > > Here is the problem: > > ``` > private struct Foo { > /* private */ struct Bar { > // it doesn't matter what you write in here, you'll never see it in `Foo` > } > } > ``` > So this is not a practical design for th

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:12, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 a

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jor

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:12, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Michael Peternell wrote: > > > Am 29.06.2016 um 23:57 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org>: > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > > > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > >> > >> On Wed,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> Am 29.06.2016 um 23:57 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > : > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Johnson >> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Xiaodi

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Johnson >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolu

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < >> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Jun 29, 2016, at

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez > > wrote: > > > > I know

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:19 PM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jor

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez > wrote: > > > > I know this might be have been brought up before but > > > > why not just disallow the “private" keyword for top level types,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:12, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < >> swift-ev

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 a

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:17, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xia

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < > swift-evolutio

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose vi

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:12, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> mai

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez >> wrote: >> > >> > I know th

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez > > wrote: > > > > I know this might be have been b

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez > wrote: > > > > I know this might be have been brought up before but > > > > why not just disallow the “private" keyword for top level types,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 9:14, Austin Zheng via swift-evolution > wrote: > > I just want a name that is: > > - a single English language word > - whose common meaning has something to do with privacy, access, permissions, > or a similar grouping concept that the other three keywords fits into >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez wrote: > > I know this might be have been brought up before but > > why not just disallow the “private" keyword for top level types, extensions > etc. > > A fixit could change top level `private` to `fileprivate`. > > I think this is a litt

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

I know this might be have been brought up before but why not just disallow the “private" keyword for top level types, extensions etc. A fixit could change top level `private` to `fileprivate`. I think this is a little less confusing since effectively this is what is happening in the backgro

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Trying to follow the discussion in this thread, but can't understand what is the main problem with SE-0025 proposal? Could someone describe briefly ? I believe this will help also for others who missed the main point to join the discussion. As I understand the proposal link is: https://github.com

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 09:59, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 08:49, Xiaodi Wu wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < >> swift-

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:51, Michael Peternell wrote: > > Hi, > > Maybe I'm wrong but as I understood the semantics of the visibility modifiers > as this: > 1) each declaration X has a certain scope S > 2) sub-declarations of X have the same scope S unless the scope is explicitly > stated wit

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Hi, Maybe I'm wrong but as I understood the semantics of the visibility modifiers as this: 1) each declaration X has a certain scope S 2) sub-declarations of X have the same scope S unless the scope is explicitly stated with a keyword (but rule #8 (about `public` access) is stronger.) 3) a sub-d

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 09:59, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Jordan Rose > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 08:49, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> ma

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Jordan Rose wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 08:49, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 19:03, Matthew Judge wrote: >> >> Comments inline. >> >> On

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 08:49, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 19:03, Matthew Judge > > wrote: >> >> Comments inline. >> >> On Jun 28, 2016

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 11:14 AM, Austin Zheng wrote: > > I just want a name that is: > > - a single English language word > - whose common meaning has something to do with privacy, access, permissions, > or a similar grouping concept that the other three keywords fits into > - and intuitively

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Austin Zheng wrote: > I just want a name that is: > > - a single English language word > - whose common meaning has something to do with privacy, access, > permissions, or a similar grouping concept that the other three keywords > fits into > - and intuitively de

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

I just want a name that is: - a single English language word - whose common meaning has something to do with privacy, access, permissions, or a similar grouping concept that the other three keywords fits into - and intuitively describes the intensity of the behavior relative to the other three key

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 11:06 AM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Johnson > wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Xiaodi Wu > > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org>wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Sean Heber wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 29,

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Xiaodi Wu wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>>wrote: > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Sean Heber > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Ma

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Sean Heber wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Sean Heber wrote: > >> >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:08 AM, David Hart wrote: >>> >>> Sorry if I wasn’t expressing myself well enough. In my original email, I >>> said that:

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution < swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 19:03, Matthew Judge wrote: > > Comments inline. > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 04:14, David Hart via swift-evolution < > swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > Hello everybody, >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > wrote: > > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:08 AM, David Hart wrote: >> >> Sorry if I wasn’t expressing myself well enough. In my original email, I >> said that: >> >> > The new rules make `private` more prominent compared to `

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:08 AM, David Hart wrote: > > Sorry if I wasn’t expressing myself well enough. In my original email, I said > that: > > > The new rules make `private` more prominent compared to `fileprivate` (the > > latter has a somewhat worse name). > > So I agree that my issue is

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Sorry if I wasn’t expressing myself well enough. In my original email, I said that: > The new rules make `private` more prominent compared to `fileprivate` (the > latter has a somewhat worse name). So I agree that my issue is more with the naming than the functionality. I’m mainly complaining

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

There is nothing preventing you from using fileprivate if you want to write your code in this style. At most you can complain that you don't like the new keyword. But you're not losing any functionality so I don't understand why you say you are "missing" something. Sent from my iPad > On Jun

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On 29 Jun 2016, at 04:03, Matthew Judge wrote: > > If I understand SE-0025 (even with the amendment) you can still spell the > access modifier to types as 'private' and get the same characteristics as the > pre-SE-0025 meaning or private, so I'm not sure I understand the concern > here. How

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 22:16, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 19:03, Matthew Judge wrote: >>> >>> Comments inline. >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 04:14, David Hart via swift-evolution >>>

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 19:03, Matthew Judge > > wrote: >> >> Comments inline. >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 04:14, David Hart via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wr

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 19:03, Matthew Judge wrote: > > Comments inline. > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 04:14, David Hart via swift-evolution > mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: > >> Hello everybody, >> >> I tried using the access rules defined in SE-0025 in some code of mine to >> see what

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Comments inline. > On Jun 28, 2016, at 04:14, David Hart via swift-evolution > wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > I tried using the access rules defined in SE-0025 in some code of mine to see > what effect it would have. I came out of the experiment more disappointed > than I thought. Here are

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Jordan Rose wrote: >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 01:14, David Hart > > wrote: >> >> Hello everybody, >> >> I tried using the access rules defined in SE-0025 in some code of mine to >> see what effect it would have. I came out of the experiment m

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 01:14, David Hart wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > I tried using the access rules defined in SE-0025 in some code of mine to see > what effect it would have. I came out of the experiment more disappointed > than I thought. Here are several reasons: > > 1) The new rules m

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On 28 Jun 2016, at 10:14, David Hart via swift-evolution > wrote: > > What is `private` members were also visible to all extensions of the type in > the same module? PS: That solution would not allow operators to access private members until they stay in the global scope. But if operators

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Hello everybody, I tried using the access rules defined in SE-0025 in some code of mine to see what effect it would have. I came out of the experiment more disappointed than I thought. Here are several reasons: 1) The new rules make `private` more prominent compared to `fileprivate` (the latte

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

This looks like good solution that will provide the intended behavior. Thanks Jordan! Sent from my iPad > On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Jordan Rose wrote: > > Robert and I wrote up the changes in the form of an amendment to SE-0025: > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/383. Please

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Robert and I wrote up the changes in the form of an amendment to SE-0025: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/383 . Please let me know if we missed anything! I talked briefly to Chris and he said the core team will decide whether it

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 20:40, John McCall wrote: > >> On Jun 23, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> On Jun 15, 2016, at 18:47, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution >>> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >>> On Jun 15, 20

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2016, at 18:47, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution >> mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 15, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Robert Widmann >> > wrote: >>> >>> Point 3

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 15, 2016, at 18:47, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution > wrote: > >> On Jun 15, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Robert Widmann > > wrote: >> >> Point 3 is *not* how member lookup applies access control levels to >> unannotated properties of outer structures (see >

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Forgive me for creating a new thread, I don't know how to reply to an archived discussion (I just registered to the mailing-list). > On *Wed Jun 15 15:09:52 CDT 2016, **Matthew Johnson* matthew at anandabits.com wrote: > There are two reasonable options here: > > 1. Allow both `private` and `

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Ok, I guess we will wait for the core team (or perhaps Ilya) to return and advise then… Thanks, Jon > On Jun 16, 2016, at 7:33 AM, Robert Widmann wrote: > > That is for migration. It does not affect the semantics of private at any > level, it merely explains how we should go about the initia

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

The changes in that patch were the minimum required to get it to build. There are definitely refinements to be had here, but I believe this gets us 90% of the way there (except corelibs-foundation which I will try to audit today after a rebase). I was only able to leave explicitly marked priva

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 10:20 AM, Robert Widmann wrote: > > > > ~Robert Widmann > > 2016/06/16 8:18、Matthew Johnson > のメッセージ: > >> >>> On Jun 16, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Robert Widmann >> > wrote: >>> >>> The Swift PM case is actual

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

~Robert Widmann 2016/06/16 8:18、Matthew Johnson のメッセージ: > >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Robert Widmann >> wrote: >> >> The Swift PM case is actually the one that causes me to sound the alarm >> bells ;) I migrated that one by hand as did @modocache for XCTest. > > What I mean is that

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Robert Widmann wrote: > > The Swift PM case is actually the one that causes me to sound the alarm bells > ;) I migrated that one by hand as did @modocache for XCTest. What I mean is that you just applied the semantic-preserving transformation of replacing `priv

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

The Swift PM case is actually the one that causes me to sound the alarm bells ;) I migrated that one by hand as did @modocache for XCTest. ~Robert Widmann 2016/06/16 8:04、Matthew Johnson のメッセージ: > >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Robert Widmann wrote: >> >> Can you not see the links to the r

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Robert Widmann wrote: > > Can you not see the links to the rest of the corelibs changes in the > discussion? Then I'll reproduce them here Thanks. I don’t see anything unexpected here. The Swift PM case is one where the team wishes to take advantage of SE-002

Re: [swift-evolution] [Discussion] A Problem With SE-0025?

Can you not see the links to the rest of the corelibs changes in the discussion? Then I'll reproduce them here - SwiftPM https://github.com/apple/swift-package-manager/pull/410 - XCTest https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-xctest/pull/124 - Foundation https://github.com/apple/swift-corel

  1   2   >