@Tino: Regarding the following statement - "Even if there was a change of mind, 
fileprivate is still needed for essential things like implementing Equatable.”
How exactly is that so? Am I missing something?

> > - 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"
> 
> 
>  

João David
iOS Software Architect
LinkedIn <http://pt.linkedin.com/in/joaotdavid> | +351 933631927 | Skype: 
joaotdavid

Please visit the iSOPARC <http://ciafel.fade.up.pt/isoparc> and iSOFIT 
<http://ciafel.fade.up.pt/isofit> for iPad application website.









_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

Reply via email to