> On Mar 26, 2017, at 08:50, David James via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> • What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> -1 as written (see below)
>
> • Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to
> Swift?
> Not as written
>
> • Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
> It does in terms of apparent simplicity, but not in terms of practicality. I
> like to think of Swift as a practical language that does not sacrifice
> utility for apparent simplicity.
>
> • If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how
> do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
> Can’t be compared. Swift has already set a precedent by making “private” mean
> something non-traditional (pre SE-0025), and I think it was a good decision,
> taking us away from the idea that private is only useful with parent
> inheritance structures.
>
> • How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or
> an in-depth study?
> Have been following it since SE-0025, the aftermath, extensive experience
> using the modifiers in framework code I write and reading all related threads
> on SE.
>
> ***
>
> I propose instead that we revise to use Alternative #3, per Vladimir’s
> comment and revision.
>
> Revised version:
>
> “3. Revert private to be file-based and introduce the scope-based access
> level under a new name (e.g.: scoped, local, etc), provided that the
> scope-based access modifier is not used at the top level of the file.”
> (addendum via Vladimir’s revised comment)
Yeah, within reason, I couldn't care less how "private"/"fileprivate" are
spelled. What I'm against is removing the functionality of the current
"private" without simultaneously providing a semantically equivalent
replacement.
- Dave Sweeris
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
