> > Here's an idea in three points: > > 1. Return to the Swift 2 definition of `private`. > 2. Introduce `scoped` to limit the visibility to within the same type, > subtype, or extension. > 3. Allow mixing the two. > > So you have: > > private // current file > private scoped // current file, in the same type, subtype, or ext. > internal // current module > internal scoped // current module, in the same type, subtype, or ext. > public // external modules > public scoped // maybe we want that one? > > Since `internal` is implied, using `scoped` alone would be equivalent to > `internal scoped`. > > Swift 3's private could be mapped to `private scoped` to achieve (almost) the > same results and thus preserve source compatibility.
Without wishing to offend, this seems to be creating a lot more keywords for people to try and get their heads around. I am a firm believer in KISS and would like to see the bare minimum of keywords for scopes, so as not to confuse the elderly, frail, young, inexperienced, etc ;-) -- Joanna Carter Carter Consulting _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
