Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 19, 2017, at 7:55 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 19 Feb 2017, at 10:20, Goffredo Marocchi via swift-evolution >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The current private is closer to other languages than the previous one we >> had which now has in fileprivate a better name. > > It is closer, but it's not a goal for Swift to always follow conventions of > other languages. It's useful sometimes. But in this case it goes directly > against the philosophy of Swift's extension feature. Swift should be allowed > to go against the norm when it serves the languages. And in this case, if > only one private should exist, it's the file-s open one. Yes, I think making private not work well with extensions was the "actively harmful" aspect of SE-0025. Scoped access itself is not actively harmful and should not be removed, but it could be renamed so that private works the way people want it to again. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
