> On Mar 6, 2017, at 11:01 AM, Jonathan Hull <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> One quick question:
>
> Nevin had a proposal that would remove ‘fileprivate' and redefine ‘private'
> to mean “private to the submodule” (which defaulted to file scope unless
> otherwise defined). This would be functionally equivalent to reversing 0025
> (until submodules were added in a later version of swift). Would such a
> proposal be in scope for Swift 4, as it is really just defining semantics for
> future updates?
I think that what you’re describing is equivalent to what is proposed by
https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/627
<https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/627>
- Doug
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
>> On Mar 6, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Like everyone else in the Swiftverse, the core team recently spent some time
>> discussing access control in Swift. While we love to see the enthusiasm on
>> this topic, wholesale changes to the access control model—such as the
>> introduction of submodules or a complete shift to a more type-centric access
>> control model—are out of scope for Swift 4.
>>
>> The core team does feel that a small part of this discussion—the reversal of
>> SE-0025’s separation of “private” and “fileprivate”---is in scope for Swift
>> 4, for which there is a proposal draft here:
>>
>> https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/pull/627
>>
>> - Doug
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
