> On Apr 3, 2017, at 12:50 PM, David Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The problem I see with that is that it would introduce orthogonal access
> levels whereas they have all been hierarchal in nature up to now.
Right. That was the motivation for “private” being restricted to
extensions/definitions in the same source file.
- Doug
>
>> On 3 Apr 2017, at 21:36, Charles Srstka <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 2:28 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Btw, I know what I'm going to propose is a bit crazy, but how about making
>>> private visible to extensions even outside the file but in the same module?
>>
>> That’s actually what I suggested in my original post on the topic. My
>> feeling was that it would allow breaking a particularly large type into
>> separate files, thus alleviating the “huge file” problem that Swift has (and
>> which Charlie Monroe brought up as a concern).
>>
>> It’s still what I’d prefer personally, although I can understand why the
>> core team might want to restrict it to files.
>>
>> Charles
>>
>
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
