On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:21 Jose Cheyo Jimenez <ch...@masters3d.com> wrote:
> > > 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. :) > That could be fixed too then. 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
