> On Apr 6, 2017, at 17:04, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Apr 6, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Neither, unfortunately. 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. > > > Could we revert `private` to its Swift 2 meaning, but keep `fileprivate` as a > compatibility alias with no plans to deprecate it until/unless we find that > the keyword has nearly disappeared from use? That'd be a wart, but in the > long run, I think it'd be less warty than living with an access control > design we're not happy with.
Sadly, no. The conclusion from SE-0159's review was that people are actively using scoped-private, even though you and I may not be. Jordan
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
