To what extent could your need for safety be satisfied by (a) giving the property a long, unique name like `unsafeUnsynchronizedT`, and (b) writing a very small unit test/shell script/Perl script which makes sure references to that very unique name only appear between the two "MARK:" comments?
-- Brent Royal-Gordon Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 23, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Tino Heth via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I can't go into detail in public, but I can say that we did a postmortem on >> a large lost sale and the customer specifically cited the number of >> frameworks in our product as an integration barrier for them. Most iOS SDKs >> are distributed as a single framework and so with that backdrop the friction >> makes more sense. >> >> As a result of that I have about 5 bugs open on how to reduce our framework >> footprint so our tools are easier for our users to integrate. There are a >> variety of solutions we use on that, what you see here is one of the saner >> ones, believe it or not. >> >> Whether or not the technical requirement makes sense to you, the business >> case is very clear. So clear that if scoped were removed we would almost >> certainly keep the file and its potential threading bugs, over promoting a >> new framework. Sales >> code, unfortunately. >> > Oh, come on — that sounds like removing new private would threaten your > existence… in this case, afaics a simple search & replace (private -> > fileprivate) works just fine. > You may not like that solution, but others might not even notice the > difference. > Imho the importance of SE-25 has been exaggerated tremendously before it was > added, and the same seems to happen now, when its removal is discussed. > > We shouldn't overdramatise this question, and don't invent arguments to > support partialities: > Access control worked fine in Swift 2, and fileprivate didn't increase the > complexity of the language in a way that makes it impossible to teach it. > > There are arguments for both positions, and they are valid — but there is a > huge variance in the perceived importance, and discussion has only very > limited effect on this. > _______________________________________________ > 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
