> On Mar 28, 2016, at 14:23, David Waite <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Mar 28, 2016, at 2:30 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> P.S. Extensions do make things a little more complicated, but again, there's >> almost no precedent here, and pretty much everyone agrees that this new >> scope-private access level shouldn't give access to extensions. That also >> means there's an option to keep yourself from accidentally accessing >> scope-private members in a member type: put the member type in an extension. > > The only example that comes to mind is Ruby, where I can add new methods to > an existing class, and those new methods indeed have access to existing > ‘private’ methods: > > class A > private def foo() > puts “foo called” > end > end > > A.new.foo() # error > > class A > def bar() # add new bar method > foo() > end > end > > A.new.bar() # prints “foo called”
Yeah, I tried to sweep that under the rug by noting that Ruby's definition of "private" didn't match up with either Java-private or current-Swift-private anyway, but it's true that someone coming from Ruby might expect this to work. Jordan
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
