Sent from my iPhone
> On 11 Apr 2017, at 02:41, Michael Mayer via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > All - > > I am not in favor of this change. While I agree that the implementation of > fileprivate and open as well as the changes to private had some unintended > by-products, they can easily be accommodated. Sometimes the language by its > nature dictates style. I say at this point, we all just need to deal with it > and move on. We have bigger and more impactful language features to fry. > > IMHO the changes in this proposal create a host of complications in the > understanding of what can already be a hard to understand topic. We are > greatly increasing the surface area of what must be learned in order to > completely grok private and fileprivate. The goal of progressive disclosure is NOT to reduce the amount of learning you need to get COMPLETE understanding of a topic like access control, but being able to get started easily with a small subset of info and go deeper if you need it and on your terms which this proposal achieves. > This added complexity does not justify what I feel are just cosmetic > improvements to suit a particular coding style. > > Changes such as this to suit a particular coding style, need to be avoided or > we risk losing focus on the definition and implementation of more critical > changes. > > I don’t comment on many proposals, but this one stood out as antithetical to > the stated goals of the Swift evolution. > > Regards, Michael > > ================== > Michael M. Mayer > Hanover, MD > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > 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
