[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access Levels
jhull at gbis.com
Tue Mar 21 04:15:16 CDT 2017
I wonder if there is a way to basically accept that this is what we want to do, but delay implementing it until we have other changes to make to the access system (e.g. submodules) at the same time?
If things like that are scoped for Swift 5, then I would say delay implementing this until then. If it will be longer than that, we may as well fix it now.
> On Mar 21, 2017, at 2:07 AM, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 4:54 PM, Douglas Gregor via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> Proposal link:
>> • What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> I'm torn. During the SE-0025 review, I argued against scoped private. I still think it was a mistake to add it. But we did, it's out there, and I don't want to introduce churn unnecessarily.
> Long ago, judges realized the problems caused by re-litigating old disputes and created a doctrine called "stare decisis": standing by things decided. That doesn't mean they won't correct obvious mistakes, but it does mean that they default to upholding the precedent they've already set. I think that would be a wise course here.
> I personally would prefer to have Swift behave as SE-0159 proposes. But if the core team thinks this is going to come out 50/50—that is, this change will help about as many people as it hurts—I think they should reject this proposal and keep the status quo. I really don't want to write another review next year for SE-0289 "Reintroduce Scoped Private".
> Brent Royal-Gordon
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
More information about the swift-evolution