(Warning: bikeshedding/off-topic angry rant ahead. Please ignore.) "The Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) states that each software module should have one and only one reason to change. This sounds good, and seems to align with Parnas' formulation. However it begs the question : What defines a reason to change?" (emphasis added) Ok I realize that languages evolve and all; and I see how the nearly universal appeal…
I don't think you're right here. In this case, the fact that "a reason to change" is central to the definition and itself undefined means that the definition is begging the question in the original sense.