Great! Glad that we have a decision. On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:34 PM Chris Lattner via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:22 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I’ve seen a number of concerns on this list about moduleprivate, and how > it penalizes folks who want to explicitly write their access control. I’ve > come to think that there is yes-another possible path forward here (which I > haven’t seen mentioned so far): > > > > public > > internal > > fileprivate > > private > > Hi Everyone, > > Thank you for all of the input. I know that this was a highly contentious > topic, that it is impossible to make everyone happy. Getting the different > inputs and perspectives has been very very useful. > > The core team met to discuss this, and settled on the list above: > public/internal/fileprivate/private. This preserves the benefit of the > “fileprivate” concept that we have today in Swift, while aligning the > “private” keyword with common expectations of people coming to Swift. This > also makes “private" the "safe default” for cases where you don’t think > about which one you want to use, and this schema will cause minimal churn > for existing Swift code. > > Thank you again for all of the input and discussion! > > -Chris > > btw, to be clear, this is *not* an April 1 joke. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
