> On Apr 3, 2017, at 3:50 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > I am greatly disappointed by this decision. The existence of the keyword > “fileprivate” is an unfortunate blemish which never should have been brought > into existence. In my view, the churn caused by renaming “private” last year > was a major mistake, and we should correct it immediately.
I agree that we shouldn't have done it, but: > I hope the core team will reconsider the spelling change to “private” and > “scoped”. We won't. John. > > Nevin > > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Proposal Link: > https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0159-fix-private-access-levels.md > > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0159-fix-private-access-levels.md> > > The review of ran from March 20...27, 2017. The proposal has been *rejected*. > > The core team had a lengthy discussion of this proposal as well as related > ideas that came up during (and prior to) the review [*]. > > SE-0159 > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0159-fix-private-access-levels.md> > specifically sought to revert the main user-facing part of SE-0025 > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md>, > which gave “private” lexical-scoping semantics and introduced “fileprivate”. > The core team felt that there was sufficient evidence that > more-restrictive-than-fileprivate access control is in use within the Swift > community and in established patterns, such that it would be harmful to > remove the functionality introduced by SE-0025 > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0025-scoped-access-level.md> > at this point. > > The core team discussed the idea of renaming to keywords that was brought up > in the thread as a way to address many of the concerns raised in SE-0159 > <https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0159-fix-private-access-levels.md> > while providing the same language semantics. Specifically: > > * “private” -> “scoped” > * “fileprivate” -> “private” > > The core team determined that such a change, while (technically) easy to > automatically migrate, would introduce far too much churn in Swift code bases > moving from Swift 3 to Swift 4, compromising the source stability goals set > out for Swift 4. > > Finally, the core team discussed a different potential design for “private” > that admits a limited form of type-based access control within files. We will > open a separate discussion thread on Swift Evolution, with the subject > "Type-based ‘private’ access within a file", and are seeking further > discussion there and a motivated volunteer to turn it into a new proposal for > Swift 4. > > - Doug Gregor > Review Manager > > [*] Big thanks to Alex Martini for his excellent notes. > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution>
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
