> On Mar 21, 2017, at 11:29 PM, Matt Whiteside via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > One point which was raised by a couple of different people on this thread > (Brent Royal-Gordon, Jonathan Hull), which gave me some hesitation in voting > in favor of this proposal, is that it might make more sense to leave things > alone for the time being, with the understanding that scoped access will be > solved in some more general way via submodules in the future.
For what it's worth, I don't really agree with Jonathan Hull on this. If we're going to remove the band-aid, we might as well rip it off now; there's no reason to wait for people to write more code for us to break. My point was simply that the burden of proof is now on those proposing to revert SE-0025, and the core team shouldn't accept this proposal unless they are satisfied that the burden has clearly been met. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
