> On Apr 3, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Vladimir.S <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Moreover, I think that we need *additional* access level(to current >>> 'private'), which will mean 'can be accessed from extensions and subtypes >>> in the same *module*' to be able to split type's conformances to number >>> of files and don't make implementation details accessible&visible for >>> whole module. (there was 'extensible' modifier discussed previously). >> >> If we wanted to do this, I think we'd want a `protected` modifier that was >> orthogonal to `internal` and `private` (which would probably revert to >> `fileprivate` semantics): > > I don't think so, IMO it seems like over-complicated structure of access > levels.
And having: 1. open 2. public 3. internal 4. Whatever your new "internal but type-only" access level would be called 5. fileprivate 6. private Is *not* overcomplicated? At that point, it's much simpler to think of it as four access levels + type-only or all-types. Again, I'm not saying such a design is *good*. I'm saying it's *better than six access levels*. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
