> On Mar 25, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >> These are special cases — both file-private and module-private is something >> that is fairly unusual > > afaics this is the third time someone mentions that "file-private" is > uncommon — so I think it's time someone dissents: > That statement is at least subjective… right now, "file-private" is one of > three access levels, and I wouldn't dare to say either is more or less > important than the others. > > I never encountered situations with the current model where I missed a new > "private"-level, and maybe "private" will become fairly unusual for the code > I'll be writing. > > In my existing code, the new meaning of private wouldn't break much, but the > current meaning doesn't hurt me, and there are cases where "file-private" is > needed. > > None the less, I don't care much about the "ugliness" of "fileprivate" — but > not because I perceive it as unusual: > I just expect that code completion will do the typing for me, so maybe "f" > will be all I have to write (half the characters of "pr" ;-)
I cannot come up with a single use-case in my code for fileprivate and would love some real world examples where you'd want visibility in a single file but not across an entire module. The fileprivate behavior has been a bugaboo of mine for some time, particularly in playground use. As far as I'm concerned, the control I really want is public, intra-modular, private, and private-even-to-extensions-and-subclasses. I assume the latter is a no-go. -- E _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
