Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 5:45 AM, David Hart via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> On 21 Feb 2017, at 11:40, Brent Royal-Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2017, at 10:58 PM, David Hart via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The scoped keyword is a good choice not only because the community has been >>> calling this feature “scoped access control” all along, but also because >>> the principle underlying all of Swift’s access levels is the idea of a >>> scope. >> >> I think the second part of this sentence undermines the argument for >> `scoped` as a keyword: if *all* access levels are about scope, then *this* >> access level should not be called `scoped`, because the keyword should >> describe what's *different* about this access level. >> >> That's not to say "scoped" is a bad name, but I think it's good because the >> space inside curly braces can be thought of as a "scope". So I'd revise this >> sentence to something like: >> >> The scoped keyword is a good choice not only because the community has >> been calling this feature “scoped access control” all along, but also >> because a variable's scope is traditionally restrained to the >> curly-brace-delimited block the variable is declared in, and that's the >> behavior `scoped` implements. > > I totally agree with you :) But that’s the part of the proposal that Matthew > Johnson is supporting. If you come to an agreement, I’ll update the proposal. I'll give some thought to rewording this section as soon as I can. Possibly tonight, possibly tomorrow. > >> -- >> Brent Royal-Gordon >> Architechies >> > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
