<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Charles Srstka <<a href="mailto:cocoadev@charlessoft.com">cocoadev@charlessoft.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Mar 23, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Matthew Johnson <<a href="mailto:matthew@anandabits.com" class="">matthew@anandabits.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Sure, but this does effectively violate lexical scope boundaries as they exist in the original source.</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">If the yeas have it on SE-0159, and “private” is turned into “fileprivate”, the lexical scope boundaries of *everything* will be violated as they exist in the original source.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not exactly We wouldn't be able to talk about them in the access control system at all.</div><div><br></div><div>My point is that they would no longer be lexical scopes but something else. This is not a judgement, only an observation.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Charles</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></body></html>