[swift-evolution] Type-based ‘private’ access within a file
nevin.brackettrozinsky at gmail.com
Tue Apr 4 14:42:18 CDT 2017
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Hart <david at hartbit.com> wrote:
> I agree with you. But that soft-default requires a simple and recognisable
> name. That’s why I proposed SE-0159. But it got rejected. If we accept that
> fact, this proposal now attempts to give private back its original intent
> as a soft-default. It’s not the access model I would have preferred, but
> its better in my opinion than the current status-quo.
Right, the soft default should clearly be spelled “private”. And for all
the reasons that have been discussed at great length, it should mean
“visible in the current file”.
> The Core Team has said they will not consider renaming private. End of
> story. It’s not worth discussing something that has* *no* *chance of
> being accepted.
Last summer there were a few proposals that went through multiple rounds of
review. The core team took the community’s feedback in each round and
adjusted things, putting them back up for review several times before
settling on a final result.
I think that we as the Swift Evolution community should do the same thing
in reverse here. We should not accept the core team’s initial decision on
this particular issue because many of us are adamantly certain that they
are making another mistake, which will have a permanent detrimental impact
on the language. Instead we should insist that a revised version of SE-0159
which focuses specifically on changing the spellings be put up for another
round of review.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution