> On Jun 29, 2016, at 14:03, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution
> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 13:13, Jose Cheyo Jimenez <ch...@masters3d.com
> > <mailto:ch...@masters3d.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I know this might be have been brought up before but
> >
> > why not just disallow the “private" keyword for top level types, extensions
> > etc.
> >
> > A fixit could change top level `private` to `fileprivate`.
> >
> > I think this is a little less confusing since effectively this is what is
> > happening in the background.
>
> That doesn’t fix anything for inner types, so it’s a lot less important than
> the rest of the amendment.
>
> There actually is an answer to this, which is that the core team expects
> 'private' to be the common keyword, and therefore it’s better if you can use
> it at the top level and ignore ‘fileprivate’ altogether in most programs.
>
> On second thought, wouldn't all of this be inapplicable if `private`
> literally meant visibility *only* within the current declaration, and neither
> outside it nor inside any nested types, etc.?
Yes, but that's not very useful:
public struct Foo {
private var value: Int = 0
public func test() {
print(value) // error
}
}
I suppose you could say that nested types are different from nested functions,
but then we start getting complexity in a different direction. And it still
doesn't fix the default access within a private type.
Jordan_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
