> I honestly still think "public, internal, private, local" is a better > taxonomy.. It's true that "internal" and "private" aren't automatically > ordered relative to each other (and maybe not even "local"), but they're all > adjectives (unlike "module" and "file"), and they're not awkward to read or > to use in conversation. But both the core team and the list disagree, mainly > because (a) it aligns 'private' more closely with other languages, and (b) if > you're not thinking about it, more restrictive is better than less. (Both of > which I agree are good ideas.)
If we're not married to "private" being the most private access level, I think there is a word that implies more privacy than "private": "secret". Something that's private is often still shared with trusted people, but something that's secret is very carefully protected indeed. "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead." So then our four access levels would be: * public * internal * private * secret -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
