> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Matthew Johnson via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > > >> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:08 AM, David Hart <da...@hartbit.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry if I wasn’t expressing myself well enough. In my original email, I >> said that: >> >> > The new rules make `private` more prominent compared to `fileprivate` (the >> > latter has a somewhat worse name). >> >> So I agree that my issue is more with the naming than the functionality. I’m >> mainly complaining that because of its name, `fileprivate` feels like more >> of a special corner case of `private`. But in the style of writing types >> through extensions, `fileprivate` will become much more prevalent than >> `private`, which feels slightly backwards. > > I don’t view it as more of a special corner case at all, but I can see why > you feel that way since it has an unprecedented (AFAIK) and more verbose > name. > > The proposal originally left `private` alone and used a new name for the new > access level. We weren’t able to find a name that didn’t have problems which > led to the idea of renaming the existing `private`. > > My perspective is that it’s just the best name we could come up with for the > concept in the context of the various access levels we want to support. The > name isn’t intended to discourage use in any way.
It may not be intended, but that doesn’t mean it won’t, though. :P I can’t say exactly *why*, but I feel similar to David here in that “fileprivate” is such an… odd… name that I’m inclined to just not use it and let things default to “internal” instead. In fact, I have *already* caught myself doing this. I don’t know if that’s *bad* exactly (would more things being internal actually aid the compiler/optimizer?), but I think this is a valid concern. The issue here is rooted in psychology, not technology. :/ l8r Sean _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
