> On Apr 20, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 20:40, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> This makes the private/fileprivate distinction meaningful for extensions. I
>> think also bans the use of "private" at global scope for non-nominal types
>> or extensions thereof. A clarifying update to the proposal is in order, so
>> developers can better understand the semantics.
>
> Wait, hang on, then people have to write 'fileprivate' instead of 'private'
> for top-level typealiases (and functions?).
That seems like the correct behavior; private is about members with SE-0169.
What do you think?
> Apart from whether or not that's desirable, it's not backwards-compatible.
Very true! It’s an easy thing to migrate, but it’s a source break nonetheless.
Let’s decide if it’s desirable and bring it up with the core team.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
