> On Oct 7, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This, I think, is the most persuasive argument available here; it provides a > concrete use case to justify why one design is superior to the other.
open extension do not exist either. :) >> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:26 David Hart via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> One argument: without this fix, private is the only access level for which >> we have no means to easily and implicitly apply an access level to a group >> of members. And it bums me to have to explicitly type private on ever single >> member to achieve the same result as I can with any other access level. In the same way that we need to be explicit about open in extension members or public in public type members; the lowest access version of scope private needs to also be explicit in private extension members and top level private concrete type members. The premise of 169 was never about creating a new version of scope private that could only be used in extensions. It just relaxed the rules for explicit private extension members.
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
