> On Oct 7, 2016, at 3:56 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 15:15, William Sumner via swift-evolution
>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Zach Waldowski via swift-evolution
>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I third this sentiment. fileprivate is a nice idea and very clearly has its
>>> uses (which is why the proposal got traction in the first place), but when
>>> combined with the other access levels, the language feature as a whole
>>> feels arbitrary. In practical use, files that I felt were nicely
>>> encapsulated and hiding implementation details are now a scattered mix of
>>> access levels, adding cognitive load and making the code look unorganized
>>> for having the gall to use extensions to split up functionality.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Zachary Waldowski
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>> Beyond the textual change of using a different modifier name, I don’t see
>> how the encapsulation and organization of code could be affected. Really,
>> there’s not much point in rehashing prior discussion of SE-0025 unless
>> there’s a previously unconsidered angle.
>
> I strongly agree with this sentiment. SE-0025 was very heavily discussed, and
> while many people were not satisfied with the solution we went with
> (including me!), it was what the core team and community converged on. I
> don't expect us to change access control again until and unless we decide to
> change the model in some way, and even then I think we'll want to go through
> extra effort to maintain compatibility with Swift 3. As has been mentioned
> repeatedly, the bar for source-breaking changes is much higher than it was in
> the first few months of swift-evolution.
>
> I actually consider it very lucky that most of our changes so far have been
> fairly non-controversial. Everybody has a different idea of what would make
> Swift a better language, and all of us well-meaning. But when those ideas
> conflict, some group is going to end up unhappy. I'm actually very glad that
> (a) we haven't had too many of these cases, and (b) even when we have, people
> have been able to accept it and move on to contributing to the next issue.
Strong agreement here as well. This proposal has been litigated numerous times
already, and the bar for source-breaking changes is much higher now. To
effectively re-open the discussion would require a proposal that significant
changes the model with a lot of evidence that such a new model is a drastic
improvement over what we have now. “Back out SE-0025” is not a viable option
now.
- Doug
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
