> On Apr 6, 2017, at 11:35, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > We accepted SE-0025, though I wish we hadn't; we named the two levels > "private" and "fileprivate", though I wish we hadn't; and now there is lots > of existing code relying on that, and it would be mean and capricious to > force people to change that code when they migrated to Swift 4. I don't like > where we ended up but Swift does not exist in a vacuum. > > I hardly think it is “mean” or “capricious” to provide a *fully automated > migrator* to make the keywords better. > > The discussion of SE-0159 reached a near-consensus that the access levels > should be spelled “private” and “scoped”. > > I was shocked and dismayed that the core team did anything other than > enthusiastically adopt that resolution.
I didn't get the sense of a "near-consensus", but one concern that I don't remember being brought up on list was that it would make mixing Swift 3 and Swift 4 much more confusing (including when dealing with sample code snippets found online). Jordan
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
