I'd like to keep "private" to be completely private and not allow class injection to gain access, but this is an edge case that could be argued either way. I can definitely live with a pure scoped access for consistency and don't want to argue the edge case in a never ending discussion.
I think that lexical scope is a well defined concept. The core team requested only the change in names for access levels. At this point, I'd like to limit the changes to that. We already had a very long discussion about all of these topics. On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 10:19 PM Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > > I created a pull request with the updated proposal: > > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/234 > > As long as you're updating the proposal, I'd like to suggest you explain > more explicitly the visibility of members marked with your new access > level. I know I was surprised that nested types cannot see a parent type's > members, and I've seen other people in this thread who seem to believe this > behaves like the classic C++/Java `private`, where extensions can see the > members. I'm sure you think it's fully specified, but it just seems to be a > point of confusion. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
