On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Douglas Gregor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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]> 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? > ...that seems suboptimal, given that the goal has been to make it possible for people to use `private` more and not less frequently. IMO, there's no need for `private typealias` at the global level to be prohibited. > 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
