Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 26, 2017, at 12:15 PM, Charles Srstka via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: > >> On Mar 26, 2017, at 11:57 AM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >> On Mar 26, 2017, at 08:50, David James via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> >>> • What is your evaluation of the proposal? >>> -1 as written (see below) >>> >>> • Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to >>> Swift? >>> Not as written >>> >>> • Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift? >>> It does in terms of apparent simplicity, but not in terms of practicality. >>> I like to think of Swift as a practical language that does not sacrifice >>> utility for apparent simplicity. >>> >>> • If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how >>> do you feel that this proposal compares to those? >>> Can’t be compared. Swift has already set a precedent by making “private” >>> mean something non-traditional (pre SE-0025), and I think it was a good >>> decision, taking us away from the idea that private is only useful with >>> parent inheritance structures. >>> >>> • How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, >>> or an in-depth study? >>> Have been following it since SE-0025, the aftermath, extensive experience >>> using the modifiers in framework code I write and reading all related >>> threads on SE. >>> >>> *** >>> >>> I propose instead that we revise to use Alternative #3, per Vladimir’s >>> comment and revision. >>> >>> Revised version: >>> >>> “3. Revert private to be file-based and introduce the scope-based access >>> level under a new name (e.g.: scoped, local, etc), provided that the >>> scope-based access modifier is not used at the top level of the file.” >>> (addendum via Vladimir’s revised comment) >> >> Yeah, within reason, I couldn't care less how "private"/"fileprivate" are >> spelled. What I'm against is removing the functionalityof the current >> "private" without simultaneously providing a semantically equivalent >> replacement. > > I’ll second that. Don’t care what the scoped access modifier is called, as > long as there is one. Agree. I don't think any supporters are insisting it be called private. Renaming seems like the compromise that satisfies the greatest number of people. > > Charles > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution