> On Apr 7, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution > <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote: >> On Apr 7, 2017, at 3:51 AM, Goffredo Marocchi <pana...@gmail.com >> <mailto:pana...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 7 Apr 2017, at 09:56, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution >> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote: >> >>>> What is your evaluation of the proposal? >>> >>> Strong -1. Just rename ‘fileprivate’ to be less annoying. >> >> So, we keep being told it won't happen and our current Bly suggestion >> discussing this proposal cannot be to just keep asking for it, can it? > > We were told we can’t do the double rename. I believe renaming ‘fileprivate’ > is still on the table (or at least it will have to be at some point when we > consider submodules).
We could, in some future update, introduce a new keyword and deprecate 'fileprivate'. Whether this impacts submodules really remains to be seen — there are about twenty different things that people mean by "submodules", and it's not at all clear that we should be aiming for a sub-file granularity instead of a super-file granularity. I understand that some people just seem personally offended by the existence of files, though. We will not be changing the meaning of 'private' after Swift 4. John. > > If renaming ‘fileprivate’ is truly off the table, we should definitely NOT > accept this proposal (for all the reasons I and others have stated). We > should keep the status quo, horrible as it may be. > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list swift-evolution@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
