[swift-evolution] [Proposal] Sealed classes by default

[michael.peternell at gmx.at]

Do you mean `public(unsealed)`? Because `internal(unsealed)` doesn't really make sense. `internal` declarations are always sealed.

-Michael

> Am 29.06.2016 um 20:11 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>:
> 
> Do we really need a new keyword? Since we already have syntax like `internal(set)` couldn't we do `internal(unsealed)`, etc.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:21 PM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Michael Peternell <michael.peternell at gmx.at> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Am 29.06.2016 um 15:54 schrieb David Sweeris via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org>:
> >>
> >> +1 for the concept of a "sealed” class.
> >> -1 for making it default.
> >
> > Aren't sealed classes already implemented? I think the keyword is `final`..
> > So there is nothing left to do :)
> 
> No, `final` doesn’t allow for any subclassing, but `sealed` allows for subclassing within your module (where you can presumably write more efficient code based on knowledge of each subclass).
> 
> - Dave Sweeris
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution