> - Typeprivate would allow to abandon the odd fileprivate. Access level would
> be constrained to swift constructs (structs, classes and extensions) and not
> to a compiler artifact (file).
Actually, imho fileprivate isn't odd or "unswift"* — it's one of the three
original levels, which all rely on the layout of the filesystem ("same file?"
and "same folder/module?").
Even if there was a change of mind, fileprivate is still needed for essential
things like implementing Equatable.
But I'm not arguing against typeprivate at all (nor against access control in
general ;-)
- Tino
* I tend not to use attributes like "swifty"… most of the time, it just means
"I think this is the right choice"
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
