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

[John McCall]

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:44 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Xiaodi Wu <xiaodi.wu at gmail.com <mailto:xiaodi.wu at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 2:54 PM, John McCall via swift-evolution <swift-evolution at swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution at swift.org>> wrote:
>> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Vladimir.S <svabox at gmail.com <mailto:svabox at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > How about `public(extensible)` ?
>> 
>> Hmm.  I started to work out an example with these as separate modifiers, and I think I understand the need to combine them in some way.
>> 
>> I wonder if just "extensible" would be good enough.  It is a term that's used in API descriptions.
>> 
>> This particular word is unfortunate because it has nothing to do with an extension, which shares the same etymological root.
> 
> I agree, but I'm not sure that it's particularly confusing in practice.
>  
> Why not just "inheritable"? That is, after all, what we mean, no?

All class methods are intrinsically inheritable.  A non-inheritable method would *require* an override.

John.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160630/9f35c47e/attachment.html>