FLIP for removing pub, pub(set) and priv (#84)

* add FLIP

* add language proposing the removal of pub(set)

* more info about removing pub set

* Update cadence/2023-05-05-remove-priv-and-pub.md

Co-authored-by: Bastian Müller <[email protected]>

* rename

* accept flip

---------

Co-authored-by: Bastian Müller <[email protected]>

cadence/20230505-remove-priv-and-pub.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+status: accepted 
+flip: 84
+authors: Daniel Sainati ([email protected])
+sponsor: Daniel Sainati ([email protected])
+updated: 2023-05-05 
+---
+
+# FLIP 84: Remove `pub` and `priv` aliases for access modifiers
+
+## Objective
+
+This FLIP proposes to remove the `pub` alias for `access(all)` and the `priv`
+modifier for `access(self)`, requiring all code to use these longer forms instead
+of the shortened ones. 
+
+This also proposes to remove the `pub(set)` access keyword, which was previously used to make
+variables publicly settable. This is not a common case, and in order to simplify the language, 
+we also propose to remove it. If users wish to have a field be publicly settable, they should write
+a public mutator function for that field. 
+
+## Motivation
+
+The proposed entitlements changes in [the entitlements FLIP](https://github.com/onflow/flips/pull/54) 
+will add a new `access(X)` modifier for entitled access, which will likely be used frequently 
+in many contracts. It would be more consistent with this new `access(X)` syntax for `pub`
+and `priv` to be `access(all)` and `access(self)` respectively. 
+
+## User Benefit
+
+This will increase the readability and consistency of user code. 
+
+## Design Proposal
+
+The proposal is simple: just remove the `pub` and `priv` aliases. `pub(set)` will 
+also be removed. 
+
+### Drawbacks
+
+This will increase the verbosity of all code, as well as break every single contract
+that exists, as it is extremely unlikely that there is any code on Mainnet currently that 
+does not use at least one `pub` modifier. However, as discussed in the next section, this may be
+an benefit rather than a drawback. 
+
+Additionally, any existing `pub(set)` fields will need to be replaced with `access(all)` fields, and be given
+a setter function explicitly in order to regain their previous functionality.
+
+### Compatibility
+
+This is not backwards compatible, and will indeed break every existing contract. However, 
+given that the aforementioned entitlements change is also going to require a rewrite of all
+code currently deployed to Mainnet, a change such as this that statically breaks all of that code
+will alert developers that changes are required, rather than allowing potentially newly unsafe
+code to slip through undetected. 
+
+### User Impact
+
+This is going to require all code to be updated to not use the deprecated modifiers. It would 
+be possible to write a migration assistant that would automatically replace the `pub` and `priv`
+modifiers with their equivalent long forms, but it is unclear if we would want to do this, given
+that a stated goal of this change is to make developers manually consider which `pub` methods are
+truly `access(all)` and which should be rewritten to use entitlements. 
+
+## Questions and Discussion Topics