> - Typeprivate would allow to abandon the odd fileprivate. Access level would 
> be constrained to swift constructs (structs, classes and extensions) and not 
> to a compiler artifact (file).
Actually, imho fileprivate isn't odd or "unswift"* — it's one of the three 
original levels, which all rely on the layout of the filesystem ("same file?" 
and "same folder/module?").
Even if there was a change of mind, fileprivate is still needed for essential 
things like implementing Equatable.

But I'm not arguing against typeprivate at all (nor against access control in 
general ;-)

- Tino

* I tend not to use attributes like "swifty"… most of the time, it just means 
"I think this is the right choice"
swift-evolution mailing list

Reply via email to