> On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:30 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The Core Team has said they will not consider renaming private. End of story.
It sounds like the core team will not consider a code migration that rewrites
“private” to “scoped”, because it would cause too much code churn. Do we have
confirmation that they would not consider introducing “scoped” without a
migration and thus without the attendant code churn? (That is, revert “private”
back to its Swift 2 meaning, introduce “scoped” in Swift 4, but don’t perform
any automatic migration from “private” to “scoped”.)
If that kind of change is out of scope, then I agree that this proposal is the
best remaining alternative. But it’s not the best alternative. It removes the
strict “scoped private” without a full replacement, and leaves “fileprivate” as
an awkward name the language. It does leave “private” in a more usable state
for the common case, which is good. If we have to choose between this and
nothing, I choose this. But I would still like to hear from the core team
regarding the possibility of introducing “scoped” without a migration (and thus
without the code churn they cited as a concern.)
-BJ
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
