> This definition of `scoped` is actually much different than the current > `private` which restricts visibility to the *current* scope. Your definition > allows visibility in an unlimited number of scopes that just happen to be of > the same type. I don’t think `scoped` is a good name for this.
Agreed > `private(type)` would be a better name if we were going to make this a > modification of the existing access modifiers. However, I don’t think this > is the right direction. If we’re going to have an access modifier that means > “in the same file *and* the same type” I think that should simply be called > `private` (a “soft default”). If we’re going to have something between > `internal` and `fileprivate` I think it would be better to explore submodules > than introduce something like `internal(type)`. I remember discussions earlier in Swift's history about bracketed keywords and it is my opinion that, when you consider other such syntax, such as public private(set) var … , this could, all too soon, get very confusing. -- Joanna Carter Carter Consulting _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
