> On Jun 29, 2016, at 17:04, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [Resending with fewer recipients due to list rules.] > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_r...@apple.com > <mailto:jordan_r...@apple.com>> wrote: > I just attended a core team meeting where this whole thing was discussed, and > will update our amendment <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/383> > tonight. But in short: > > - The default access level will be 'internal' everywhere*. The compiler will > not warn if the access-as-written is broader than necessary. Motivation: it > should be possible to design a type's API as if it had more access than it > currently does. > > * except in extensions, see below > > - The complicated "rule 2" from the amendment stands, but possibly in a form > that isn't specific to 'fileprivate': > >> A non-private method, initializer, subscript, property, or typealias may >> still have a type that references `private` declarations if (1) the >> non-private declaration is a member of a private type, and (2) all >> referenced `private` declarations are defined within an enclosing lexical >> scope. That is, it is legal for a non-private member within a `private` type >> to have a type that is formally `private` if it would be legal for a >> `private` declaration in the parent scope to have that type. > > > As Xiaodi pointed out, this could be even broader, to say that an internal > member may reference a fileprivate type if the member is itself defined > within a fileprivate type, because it's still safe. That would look like this: > >> A member may not have a type that references any declarations that aren't >> accessible wherever the member is accessible. > > I'm concerned about that being too permissive, though. I still want this to > be considered an error: > > fileprivate struct Foo { > fileprivate typealias Bar = Int > internal func baz() -> Bar { … } > } > > If the default access level is internal everywhere, then the example above > being an error would mean that this also becomes an error: > > ``` > fileprivate struct Foo { > fileprivate typealias Bar = Int > func baz() -> Bar { ... } > } > ``` > > That would, I think, be surprising. Thus, I'd recommend the broader rule. > What makes you conclude that it's too permissive? >
Ah, right, that would break backwards-compatibility. The broader rule it is! Thanks, Xiaodi. Jordan
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
