On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:57 PM Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 > I can support that and do like the word 'secret'. I am fine with keeping 'private' the same as it currently is even if it different from other languages (since it already does). -Shawn
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
