> Am 30.06.2016 um 00:17 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]>:
>
> Here is the problem:
>
> ```
> private struct Foo {
> /* private */ struct Bar {
> // it doesn't matter what you write in here, you'll never see it in `Foo`
> }
> }
> ```
>
So this is not a practical design for this feature then. Following the ideas I
presented a few hours earlier this should lead to:
private struct Foo {
struct Bar {
var strawberryBar: [String]
}
// Scope(Bar) = Scope(Foo), because the scope of Bar is unspecified
// Scope(Bar.strawBerryBar) = Scope(Bar) = Scope(Foo), for the same reason
// Foo is visible here => Bar.strawberryBar is visible too
func hello() {
let s = Bar(strawberryBar: ["yummi"]
print("mjam: \(s.strawberryBar)")
}
// everything compiles...
}
Making Bar implicitly private doesn't make sense at all. Bar should have the
same scope as Foo. `private` on Bar has a completely different meaning than
`private` on Foo so this is not the same access level. The implicit access
level of Bar is unutterable here.
Anyways... I'm out. I think there *is* a possible design that works. As long as
no one provides another (possibly better) solution or argues with my why my
design can not work I see no point (for me) in continuing this discussion.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
