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

[Charles Srstka]

> On Apr 4, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Nevin Brackett-Rozinsky via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:30 PM, David Hart <david at hartbit.com <mailto: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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3at_Ev2kOoI <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3at_Ev2kOoI>

Charles

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170404/9ee3b024/attachment.html>