[swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access Levels
davesweeris at mac.com
Sun Mar 26 11:57:42 CDT 2017
> On Mar 26, 2017, at 08:50, David James via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> • What is your evaluation of the proposal?
> -1 as written (see below)
> • Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to Swift?
> Not as written
> • Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
> It does in terms of apparent simplicity, but not in terms of practicality. I like to think of Swift as a practical language that does not sacrifice utility for apparent simplicity.
> • If you have used other languages or libraries with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
> Can’t be compared. Swift has already set a precedent by making “private” mean something non-traditional (pre SE-0025), and I think it was a good decision, taking us away from the idea that private is only useful with parent inheritance structures.
> • How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
> Have been following it since SE-0025, the aftermath, extensive experience using the modifiers in framework code I write and reading all related threads on SE.
> I propose instead that we revise to use Alternative #3, per Vladimir’s comment and revision.
> Revised version:
> “3. Revert private to be file-based and introduce the scope-based access level under a new name (e.g.: scoped, local, etc), provided that the scope-based access modifier is not used at the top level of the file.”
> (addendum via Vladimir’s revised comment)
Yeah, within reason, I couldn't care less how "private"/"fileprivate" are spelled. What I'm against is removing the functionality of the current "private" without simultaneously providing a semantically equivalent replacement.
- Dave Sweeris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution