@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 Developer / Researcher
CIAFEL<https://ciafel.fade.up.pt/> - University of Porto
Rua Dr Plácido Costa, 91
4200-450 Porto
Portugal

+351 93 363 19 27 | Skype: joaotdavid
joao...@fade.up.pt<mailto:joao...@fade.up.pt>

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














-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

Reply via email to