On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Carl Brown1 <carl.bro...@ibm.com> wrote:
> Yes, it would change my opinion of it. I wouldn't become a strong > supporter because I don't see any value in it, but a rigorous proof that > this proposal could not possibly introduce regressions to any existing > codebases would change my opinion from "strongly against" to "doesn't > matter to me, I'll stop arguing against it and go get my real work done". > Well, that's promising, I guess? I think it's entirely reasonable to want a migration path that can demonstrably preserve the behavior of existing codebases. For most use sites, it would be no more than find-and-replace; a more sophisticated process will be required for scenarios where a private declaration uses a name identical to something called elsewhere in the file--in the worst case, a renaming will be required, such as in a case like this: ``` func f() -> String { return "A" } struct S { static func g() -> String { return f() } } extension S { private static func f() -> String { return "B" } } S.g() ``` This will require some compiler smarts. And I think a successful proposal would have to provide solid proof that all such scenarios are covered. I'll think about this over the weekend. > > > -Carl > > [image: Inactive hide details for Xiaodi Wu ---03/25/2017 12:33:55 > AM---Would it change your opinion on the proposal? On Sat, Mar 25, 2]Xiaodi > Wu ---03/25/2017 12:33:55 AM---Would it change your opinion on the > proposal? On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Carl Brown1 <Carl.Br > > From: Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi...@gmail.com> > To: Carl Brown1/US/IBM@IBM > Cc: Drew Crawford <d...@sealedabstract.com>, Jonathan Hull <jh...@gbis.com>, > swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> > Date: 03/25/2017 12:33 AM > Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access Levels > ------------------------------ > > > > Would it change your opinion on the proposal? > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Carl Brown1 <*carl.bro...@ibm.com* > <carl.bro...@ibm.com>> wrote: > > I would very much like to see your proof that the resultant code is > unchanged in an arbitrary codebase. > > -Carl > > [image: Inactive hide details for Xiaodi Wu ---03/25/2017 12:01:26 > AM---On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Carl Brown1 <Carl.Brown1@ibm.]Xiaodi > Wu ---03/25/2017 12:01:26 AM---On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Carl > Brown1 <*carl.bro...@ibm.com* <carl.bro...@ibm.com>> wrote: > Maybe > this is the core > > From: Xiaodi Wu <*xiaodi...@gmail.com* <xiaodi...@gmail.com>> > To: Carl Brown1/US/IBM@IBM > Cc: Drew Crawford <*d...@sealedabstract.com* <d...@sealedabstract.com>>, > Jonathan Hull <*jh...@gbis.com* <jh...@gbis.com>>, swift-evolution < > *swift-evolution@swift.org* <swift-evolution@swift.org>> > Date: 03/25/2017 12:01 AM > Subject: Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access > Levels > ------------------------------ > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Carl Brown1 <*carl.bro...@ibm.com* > <carl.bro...@ibm.com>> wrote: > > My point is that, in rolling back the specific portion of SE-0025, > case-sensitive find-and-replace will be the trickiest thing in most > codebases, save those that result in invalid redeclarations. The behavior > of the resultant code is, unless I'm mistaken, provably unchanged. > > > > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution