> On Apr 4, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Hart <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I agree with you. But that soft-default requires a simple and recognisable > name. That’s why I proposed SE-0159. But it got rejected. If we accept that > fact, this proposal now attempts to give private back its original intent as > a soft-default. It’s not the access model I would have preferred, but its > better in my opinion than the current status-quo. > > Right, the soft default should clearly be spelled “private”. And for all the > reasons that have been discussed at great length, it should mean “visible in > the current file”. > > > The Core Team has said they will not consider renaming private. End of story. > It’s not worth discussing something that has*no* chance of being accepted. > > Last summer there were a few proposals that went through multiple rounds of > review. The core team took the community’s feedback in each round and > adjusted things, putting them back up for review several times before > settling on a final result. > > I think that we as the Swift Evolution community should do the same thing in > reverse here. We should not accept the core team’s initial decision on this > particular issue because many of us are adamantly certain that they are > making another mistake, which will have a permanent detrimental impact on the > language. Instead we should insist that a revised version of SE-0159 which > focuses specifically on changing the spellings be put up for another round of > review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3at_Ev2kOoI <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3at_Ev2kOoI> Charles
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
