On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Jarod Long via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> Pretty bummed out about the rejection. I know it's a petty aesthetic > issue, but thinking about having to write "fileprivate" 5 or 10 years from > now kills more of my enthusiasm about using the language than I'd like to > admit. I think it's going to always be viewed by most as a major wart on an > otherwise great language. > I agree. If someone made a fork of Swift whose only difference was to change the spellings to “private” and “scoped”, and there was a way to use it with Xcode, then I would use that instead of the official version in a heartbeat. Heck, if someone made a preprocessor that just replaced the access modifiers before compiling, I’d jump at the chance to use it. My remaining hope is that Swift will acquire a submodule design which renders “fileprivate” essentially redundant. If we get an access level that means “visible in a group of tightly-related files” and it has a concise spelling, then I will use that just about exclusively. If a file is not explicitly part of a submodule then that new level would be synonymous with “fileprivate”, and if it is in a submodule then that level is exactly what I want anyway, so I can split up tightly-coupled implementations into separate files. I don’t know what the spelling for that access level would be, but if we can find a good one then I’ll be happy to never have to type “fileprivate” again. Nevin
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
