On Sat, Oct 8, 2016, at 07:42 AM, Anton Zhilin via swift-evolution wrote:
> As far as I can see, almost all people, who talk here, agree that
> private / fileprivate distinction brought more harm than good. Despite
> corresponding proposal being accepted.
> I think, it means that current mailing-list system is failing. Let's
> accept it, gmane looks and feels ugly by comparison to forums. And
> using email limits the number of people involved by an order of
> What we need is popularization of SE, reaching as many developers as
> we can, using simple voting, likes, and so on.
This is a bad conclusion. Discussions like this naturally attract people
who are unhappy with the status quo. So it's no surprise that you're
seeing a lot of people say they don't like private. Personally, I *love*
having the new private and I use it almost everywhere. It's very rare
for me to write fileprivate and when I do, it's an intentional decision.
And the only reason I even saw this thread is because someone linked it
to me on Slack.
> 2016-10-08 12:31 GMT+03:00 Haravikk via swift-evolution <swift-
>> > On 7 Oct 2016, at 22:44, Tony Allevato via swift-evolution <swift-
>> > evolut...@swift.org> wrote:
>> > personally I thought `private` was fine the way it was when it
>> > meant `fileprivate` and I had no real need for `private` as it
>> > exists in Swift 3.
>> I have to agree with this; I wasn't especially comfortable with the
>> change (or the eventual choice of keyword style) and in practice I
>> just don't find it useful. I haven't used the new "private" even once
>> since it was added, except by accident, the only form of private I
>> use is fileprivate.
>> I've happily embraced the conform through extension style in Swift,
>> and really when it comes down to it the new private access level
>> just isn't compatible with that style of development. It's only
>> really useful for hiding details of something you add in one
>> specific section, which I almost never do (and when I do I just mark
>> it fileprivate in case I can re-use it).
>> Maybe some people do find it useful, but I'd prefer fileprivate to
>> be the default behaviour of private; the current (scoped?) private
>> access level seems far more limited, thus more deserving of a less
>> convenient keyword, or some kind of modifier on private. But
>> personally I'd be fine with removing it, as I don't think it really
>> adds anything that fileprivate doesn't already cover.
> swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution mailing list