> On Mar 23, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Zach Waldowski via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:22 AM, Matt Gallagher via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I can't help but feel that this proposal is really misdirected frustration. >> Programmers who don't use clusters of tiny types in a single file shouldn't >> care about the existence of a scoped access modifier because it shouldn't >> affect them – they should use file access modifiers and be done. Yet >> apparently, it is file access modifier advocates pushing this proposal. > > It is equally frustrating that those on the opposite side of this proposal > keep indicating “just don’t pay attention to it” is an acceptable answer to > the language growing an entire axis of confusion to its access control (i.e., > a wart) so early in its life.
I think it’s likely that a non-trivial degree of any confusion is related to the mistake we made in choosing the names. Both `fileprivate` and `private` include the word `private` in their name. If we had left `private` alone and introduces scoped access with the name `scoped` I think the difference would have been much more clear to most people who have been confused. > > Sincerely, > Zachary Waldowski > Sent from my Mac > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
