https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20170417/035885.html
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 17:05 David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote: > Do you a have a link to that discussion? > > > On 10 Aug 2017, at 00:04, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Agree, but again, I tried, and the answer was no, it’s not considered a > bug and cannot be fixed without independent discussion. > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 16:51 David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote: > >> The last thing I want is to launch into a new round of discussions. I am >> just hoping it can be considered as a straight bug that can be fixed >> without any discussion. >> >> >> On 9 Aug 2017, at 23:47, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I brought this up after SE-0169, but it was deemed to be a separate issue >> and any further consideration was declined. Let’s not initiate another >> round of access control discussions. >> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 16:31 David Hart via swift-evolution < >> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >>> Actually, I think this is this way only as a relic from the original >>> private/fileprivate proposal. Swift 3’s private has no meaning as an >>> extension modifier, so it was made to alias to fileprivate. But >>> since SE-0169 modified private’s meaning so that it would make sense as >>> an extension modifier, I think we should fix this. >>> >>> On 9 Aug 2017, at 23:22, David Hart via swift-evolution < >>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> That behaviour was never explicitly mentioned in SE-0169 but I agree its >>> confusing. But I’m also fairly sure the only window to do anything about it >>> is Swift 4. Everybody is really worn down by those access level discussions. >>> >>> For illustration, Vladimir is confused that: >>> >>> private extension Foo { >>> func foo() {} >>> } >>> >>> is equivalent to: >>> >>> fileprivate extension Foo { >>> func foo() {} >>> } >>> >>> making it accessible to another type in the same file: >>> >>> struct Bar { >>> func bar(foo: Foo) { >>> foo.foo() >>> } >>> } >>> >>> Aren't access levels on extensions supposed to define the default access >>> level of the members of the extension?Is this a bug then? >>> >>> On 9 Aug 2017, at 21:18, Vladimir.S via swift-evolution < >>> swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> swift-evolution@swift.org >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> swift-evolution@swift.org >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> swift-evolution@swift.org >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> >>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution