Maybe it's good thing that we just discussed it. After replying to Matthew, this meaning private feels so wrong that I will update the proposal to disallow this. Private should mean private.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:27 AM Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > > We already had a very long discussion about all of these topics. > > I am not suggesting you change the design. I am suggesting you clarify the > description of your existing design so that everyone understands what it > means, because confusion is rampant. > > > I'd like to keep "private" to be completely private and not allow class > injection to gain access, but this is an edge case that could be argued > either way. I can definitely live with a pure scoped access for > consistency and don't want to argue the edge case in a never ending > discussion. > > > So what you're saying is, you are purposefully writing the proposal > vaguely so that everyone can assume it says whatever they imagine it says, > and thus more people will support the proposal? > > This is no way to design a programming language. > > -- > Brent Royal-Gordon > Architechies > >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
