[swift-evolution] Type-based ‘private’ access within a file

John McCall rjmccall at apple.com
Tue Apr 4 15:11:11 CDT 2017

> On Apr 4, 2017, at 3:43 PM, BJ Homer via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:30 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> The Core Team has said they will not consider renaming private. End of story.
> It sounds like the core team will not consider a code migration that rewrites “private” to “scoped”, because it would cause too much code churn. Do we have confirmation that they would not consider introducing “scoped” without a migration and thus without the attendant code churn? (That is, revert “private” back to its Swift 2 meaning, introduce “scoped” in Swift 4, but don’t perform any automatic migration from “private” to “scoped”.)
> If that kind of change is out of scope, then I agree that this proposal is the best remaining alternative. But it’s not the best alternative. It removes the strict “scoped private” without a full replacement, and leaves “fileprivate” as an awkward name the language. It does leave “private” in a more usable state for the common case, which is good. If we have to choose between this and nothing, I choose this. But I would still like to hear from the core team regarding the possibility of introducing “scoped” without a migration (and thus without the code churn they cited as a concern.)

You're absolutely right that we should be more clear about what we're willing to consider, both for 4.0 and in the future.  We did talk about these issues in our last meeting, but I'll make sure we talk about them again this week so that everybody's on the same page.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170404/ae1a604b/attachment.html>

More information about the swift-evolution mailing list