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