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 extensions.

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

Reply via email to