Could someone remind please, was it decided to stick with 'private extension' means
actually fileprivate access level for members declared in such extension or this
could be discussed for Swift5?
Currently, when private members are visible in type/extensions of that type in the
same file, IMO there is no sense to treat 'private extension' as 'fileprivate
extension', it is reasonable to group some private members of type into extension
without making them fileprivate, and such members can be used from the type/other
And also this is a huge inconsistency in my opinion: all other access modifiers
'work' as expected for extensions, but only 'private extension' means not what
written, very surprising for one who don't expect this.
swift-evolution mailing list