<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Jordan Rose 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"><span class=""><br></span>We accepted SE-0025, though I wish we hadn't; we named the two levels "private" and "fileprivate", though I wish we hadn't; and now there is lots of existing code relying on that, and it would be mean and capricious to force people to change that code when they migrated to Swift 4. I don't like where we ended up but Swift does not exist in a vacuum.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I hardly think it is “mean” or “capricious” to provide a *fully automated migrator* to make the keywords better.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The discussion of SE-0159 reached a near-consensus that the access levels should be spelled “private” and “scoped”.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I was shocked and dismayed that the core team did anything other than enthusiastically adopt that resolution.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Nevin</div></div>