<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 26, 2017, at 4:27 AM, Goffredo Marocchi <<a href="mailto:panajev@gmail.com" class="">panajev@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="">On 26 Mar 2017, at 06:54, John McCall via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 25, 2017, at 2:11 AM, Carl Brown1 via swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><font size="2" class="">Yes, it would change my opinion of it. I wouldn't become a strong supporter because I don't see any value in it, but a rigorous proof that this proposal could not possibly introduce regressions to any existing codebases would change my opinion from "strongly against" to "doesn't matter to me, I'll stop arguing against it and go get my real work done".</font><br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div class="">Speaking just for myself, this was a key part of why I was attracted to this proposal: it seemed to me to be extremely unlikely to cause regressions in behavior. Even without any special behavior in the migrator, code will mostly work exactly as before: things that would have been invalid before will become valid, but not the other way around. The exception is that old-private declarations from scopes in the same file can now be found by lookups in different scopes (but still only within the same file). It should be quite straightforward for the migrator to detect when this has happened and report it as something for the programmer to look at. The proposal causes a small regression in functionality, in that there's no longer any way to protect scopes from accesses within the file, but (1) it's okay for Swift to be opinionated about file size and (2) it seems to me that a workable sub-module proposal should solve that more elegantly while simultaneously addressing the concerns of the people who dislike acknowledging the existence of files.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The opinionated flag sometimes, like being Swifty, is being used to swath away disagreement, but opinions should be reasonable and pragmatic too... opinionated as "you will code this way and you will like it" seems hardly ideal too if abused constantly. Programming is a creative endeavour too.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Also, removing a feature that is used and is useful because "maybe" a year or more away there could be a feature that may address the concerns of the people we are stripping away the current feature from seems quite harsh and unfriendly at best... not very logical either.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Scoped-private is not some awesomely expressive feature. It's an access restriction. The "opinion" I'm talking about hardly prevents you from coding however you like. It's just this: organizing your code into smaller, more self-contained components separated by file is good practice anyway, and when you do that, Swift will let you enforce that each component is properly encapsulated.</div></div><div><br class=""></div><div>John.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">John.</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><font size="2" class="">-Carl</font><br class=""><br class=""><span id="cid:1__=8FBB0A7DDFB206B68f9e8a93df938690918c8FB@" class=""><graycol.gif></span><font size="2" color="#424282" class="">Xiaodi Wu ---03/25/2017 12:33:55 AM---Would it change your opinion on the proposal? On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Carl Brown1 <Carl.Br</font><br class=""><br class=""><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class="">From: </font><font size="2" class="">Xiaodi Wu <<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" class="">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>></font><br class=""><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class="">To: </font><font size="2" class="">Carl Brown1/US/IBM@IBM</font><br class=""><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class="">Cc: </font><font size="2" class="">Drew Crawford <<a href="mailto:drew@sealedabstract.com" class="">drew@sealedabstract.com</a>>, Jonathan Hull <<a href="mailto:jhull@gbis.com" class="">jhull@gbis.com</a>>, swift-evolution <<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></font><br class=""><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class="">Date: </font><font size="2" class="">03/25/2017 12:33 AM</font><br class=""><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class="">Subject: </font><font size="2" class="">Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access Levels</font><br class=""></p><hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade="" style="color:#8091A5; " class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Would it change your opinion on the proposal?<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Carl Brown1 <<a href="mailto:Carl.Brown1@ibm.com" target="_blank" class=""><u class=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">Carl.Brown1@ibm.com</font></u></a>> wrote:
<ul class=""><font size="2" class="">I would very much like to see your proof that the resultant code is unchanged in an arbitrary codebase. </font><br class=""><font size="2" class=""><br class="">-Carl</font><br class=""><br class=""><span id="cid:1__=8FBB0A7DDFB206B68f9e8a93df938690918c8FB@" class=""><graycol.gif></span><font size="2" color="#424282" class="">Xiaodi Wu ---03/25/2017 12:01:26 AM---On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Carl Brown1 <</font><a href="mailto:Carl.Brown1@ibm.com" target="_blank" class=""><u class=""><font size="2" color="#0000FF" class="">Carl.Brown1@ibm.com</font></u></a><font size="2" color="#424282" class="">> wrote: > Maybe this is the core</font><br class=""><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class=""><br class="">From: </font><font size="2" class="">Xiaodi Wu <</font><a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" target="_blank" class=""><u class=""><font size="2" color="#0000FF" class="">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</font></u></a><font size="2" class="">></font><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class=""><br class="">To: </font><font size="2" class="">Carl Brown1/US/IBM@IBM</font><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class=""><br class="">Cc: </font><font size="2" class="">Drew Crawford <</font><a href="mailto:drew@sealedabstract.com" target="_blank" class=""><u class=""><font size="2" color="#0000FF" class="">drew@sealedabstract.com</font></u></a><font size="2" class="">>, Jonathan Hull <</font><a href="mailto:jhull@gbis.com" target="_blank" class=""><u class=""><font size="2" color="#0000FF" class="">jhull@gbis.com</font></u></a><font size="2" class="">>, swift-evolution <</font><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank" class=""><u class=""><font size="2" color="#0000FF" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</font></u></a><font size="2" class="">></font><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class=""><br class="">Date: </font><font size="2" class="">03/25/2017 12:01 AM</font><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F" class=""><br class="">Subject: </font><font size="2" class="">Re: [swift-evolution] [Review] SE-0159: Fix Private Access Levels</font><br class=""><hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade="" class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:55 PM, Carl Brown1 <<a href="mailto:Carl.Brown1@ibm.com" target="_blank" class=""><u class=""><font color="#0000FF" class="">Carl.Brown1@ibm.com</font></u></a>> wrote:
<p class="">My point is that, in rolling back the specific portion of SE-0025, case-sensitive find-and-replace will be the trickiest thing in most codebases, save those that result in invalid redeclarations. The behavior of the resultant code is, unless I'm mistaken, provably unchanged.
</p><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div></ul><br class=""><div class=""><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><p class=""><br class="">
</p></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">swift-evolution mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a><br class=""><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><span class="">_______________________________________________</span><br class=""><span class="">swift-evolution mailing list</span><br class=""><span class=""><a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" class="">swift-evolution@swift.org</a></span><br class=""><span class=""><a href="https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution" class="">https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution</a></span><br class=""></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>