<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Jarod Long via swift-evolution <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org" target="_blank">swift-evolution@swift.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div name="messageBodySection" style="font-size:14px;font-family:-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,sans-serif">Pretty bummed out about the rejection. I know it's a petty aesthetic issue, but thinking about having to write "fileprivate" 5 or 10 years from now kills more of my enthusiasm about using the language than I'd like to admit. I think it's going to always be viewed by most as a major wart on an otherwise great language.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree. If someone made a fork of Swift whose only difference was to change the spellings to “private” and “scoped”, and there was a way to use it with Xcode, then I would use that instead of the official version in a heartbeat. Heck, if someone made a preprocessor that just replaced the access modifiers before compiling, I’d jump at the chance to use it.</div><div><br></div><div>My remaining hope is that Swift will acquire a submodule design which renders “fileprivate” essentially redundant. If we get an access level that means “visible in a group of tightly-related files” and it has a concise spelling, then I will use that just about exclusively. If a file is not explicitly part of a submodule then that new level would be synonymous with “fileprivate”, and if it is in a submodule then that level is exactly what I want anyway, so I can split up tightly-coupled implementations into separate files.</div><div><br></div><div>I don’t know what the spelling for that access level would be, but if we can find a good one then I’ll be happy to never have to type “fileprivate” again.</div><div><br></div><div>Nevin</div></div></div></div>