Yes, #module would be a nice addition and I like the #file and #modules scope names since they can't clash with user defined names.
-- Howard. On 30 March 2016 at 11:47, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > > If Scala style access modifiers were adopted for Swift then a > private(file) modifier would also be necessary to give the current private > functionality. > > I could imagine having these options: > > public // visible > to all everyone > private(scope-name, scope-name, …) // visible to specified > scopes (plus current scope) > private // visible > only to current scope > > scope-name could perhaps be: > > * A type name (or Self, which would mimic C++-style private, or perhaps > even C++-style protected depending on how we treat inheritance) > * A module name (or #module for the current module) > * A file name string (or #file for the current file) > > And then the default would simply be `private(#module)`. > > Alternatively, the parameterized level could be given a different name, > like `internal` or `shared`. If that were the case, then `#module` might > simply be the default. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
