> On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:37 PM, David Waite via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >> On Feb 16, 2017, at 4:28 PM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >> As I have said elsewhere, I think the mental anguish mostly derives from the >> fact that scoped private is not the right “default” in a language that uses >> extensions pervasively. Chris’s suggestion of having private mean “same >> file *and* same type” would be a good default. But if we’re not willing to >> *also* have fileprivate then the Swift 2 definition of private is the best >> “default’. >> >> I still think scoped access control is valuable but taking `private` as the >> keyword for this was a mistake. I’d like to see us take another stab at >> identifying a suitable name for it. That said, I get the feeling that not >> too many others have appetite for this so it may be a lost cause… > > My opinion is that a file level grouping is fine, but that people want a > level between that and internal. They want to have subsystems. In Swift 2, > the only level below framework-wide was the fileprivate-style scope, which > had the potential to encourage lots of interrelated code to be grouped within > a single source file.
Is it really necessary to encode this subsystem grouping in a way that can be checked by the compiler though, instead of enforcing it with coding conventions? Slava > > -DW > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
