[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Rename fileprivate to shared

[Xiaodi Wu]

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 3:20 PM, James Froggatt via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> That's a shame if true, but my interpretation was that the rejection
> specifically cited the double-rename of fileprivate to private, and private
> to scoped, a major change which renames two access modifier, and reuses a
> spelling, making a staged migration impossible.
>

That's my understanding as well. The core team's promise at the end of
SE-0025 was that they would entertain future suggestions for `fileprivate`
should a superior spelling come about.

Since this suggestion is less impactful - affecting only one keyword, using
> a spelling with no prior meaning, and can be done as a staged transition
> (we can keep fileprivate around in Swift 4 while allowing shared and adding
> a warning to fileprivate), I hoped the core team might be willing to
> consider it.
>
> I think a lot of people would be pleased to be able to use a better
> spelling than fileprivate, even if it is never completely removed. This
> proposal would allow that.
>
> > On 6 Apr 2017, at 19:32, David Hart <david at hartbit.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > During the discussion that followed the rejection of SE-0159 the Core
> Team explained that they would not consider any rename to access control
> keywords, for the same reasons behind SE-0159's rejection: source
> compatibility. So I'm fairly sure this suggestion would go very far.
> >
> > David.
> >
> >> On 6 Apr 2017, at 16:30, James Froggatt via swift-evolution <
> swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> As the title says, I think renaming `fileprivate` to `shared` is the
> simplest way to solve the issues we have with spelling.
> >>
> >> My first line of reasoning is that it only affects one modifier,
> leaving private as it is. This minimises the amount of code affected,
> making it much more straightforward to migrate than the
> fileprivate-private-scoped switchup that has been suggested previously.
> >>
> >> My justification for `shared` as the new spelling is that it expresses
> *why* the developer would use the access level - to share implementation
> details with something, be it an extension or another type. It sounds
> natural and first-class, and fits well within the hierarchy.
> >>
> >> Private itself isn't too bad a default, and this change would leave it
> so, while making `shared` act as an informative identifier for where
> file-scope (or submodule-scope) sharing takes place. This would also hint
> at when the access level should be used from a design standpoint - more so
> than `fileprivate` or `file`.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> swift-evolution mailing list
> >> swift-evolution at swift.org
> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> >
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170406/20272e3d/attachment.html>