On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:20 PM, James Froggatt via swift-evolution < [email protected]> wrote:
> That's a shame if true, but my interpretation was that the rejection > specifically cited the double-rename of fileprivate to private, and private > to scoped, a major change which renames two access modifier, and reuses a > spelling, making a staged migration impossible. > That's my understanding as well. The core team's promise at the end of SE-0025 was that they would entertain future suggestions for `fileprivate` should a superior spelling come about. Since this suggestion is less impactful - affecting only one keyword, using > a spelling with no prior meaning, and can be done as a staged transition > (we can keep fileprivate around in Swift 4 while allowing shared and adding > a warning to fileprivate), I hoped the core team might be willing to > consider it. > > I think a lot of people would be pleased to be able to use a better > spelling than fileprivate, even if it is never completely removed. This > proposal would allow that. > > > On 6 Apr 2017, at 19:32, David Hart <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > During the discussion that followed the rejection of SE-0159 the Core > Team explained that they would not consider any rename to access control > keywords, for the same reasons behind SE-0159's rejection: source > compatibility. So I'm fairly sure this suggestion would go very far. > > > > David. > > > >> On 6 Apr 2017, at 16:30, James Froggatt via swift-evolution < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> As the title says, I think renaming `fileprivate` to `shared` is the > simplest way to solve the issues we have with spelling. > >> > >> My first line of reasoning is that it only affects one modifier, > leaving private as it is. This minimises the amount of code affected, > making it much more straightforward to migrate than the > fileprivate-private-scoped switchup that has been suggested previously. > >> > >> My justification for `shared` as the new spelling is that it expresses > *why* the developer would use the access level - to share implementation > details with something, be it an extension or another type. It sounds > natural and first-class, and fits well within the hierarchy. > >> > >> Private itself isn't too bad a default, and this change would leave it > so, while making `shared` act as an informative identifier for where > file-scope (or submodule-scope) sharing takes place. This would also hint > at when the access level should be used from a design standpoint - more so > than `fileprivate` or `file`. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> swift-evolution mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
