> I know that it’s been suggested a while back, but what is/was the reasoning > for rejecting: > > • public > • module (same as internal in Swift 2.2) > • file (same as private in Swift 2.2) > • private
I know; I was one of the people who suggested it. I believe I saw two reasons for rejecting it: 1. This might be read as declaring a module/file, or attaching it to a module/file (a la `class func`), rather than scoping it. 2. `private` and `public` are adjectives; `module` and `file` are nouns. I'm not entirely convinced by #1; #2 could be addressed by using, for instance, `modulewide` and `filewide`. In any case, though, the discussion seems to have moved elsewhere. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
