> On 19 Feb 2017, at 18:10, Goffredo Marocchi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Good thing that both can exist then :). One day we may even get things such > as abstract classes and be allowed to model abstentions wth classes and > reference types better without it being seen as an attack to value types ;)..
But if both exist, we are keeping two access levels that are quite similar to please two groups of people: people that are used to scoped-access from other languages and people who prefer an access level which works better with Swift’s idioms. It’s wasteful to keep two around IMHO. > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 19 Feb 2017, at 13:55, David Hart <[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. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
