> On Mar 30, 2016, at 16:30, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > > While working that out, I also came up with a new suggestion for keywording > if we keep just these four levels and don't generalize `fileprivate` into an > "internal, with limitations" mechanism: > > * public > * moduleinternal > * internal > * private > > This version saddles only the module access level, which rarely needs to be > typed explicitly, with an awkward compound keyword. The file access level > (which I suspect is more often necessary than many in this thread believe) > gets a single, simple keyword. Additionally, by having only one gobbledygook > access level, when you *do* see the gobbledygook keyword you don't have to > try to parse it. > > This does have the disadvantage of not matching C#'s meaning of `internal`; > we could do something else, like `shared`/`moduleshared`, instead. But I'm > not sure how valuable that correspondence is.
I maintain that anyone with a coding convention of "always write an access modifier" will be very upset with this. Jordan _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
