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

[Xiaodi Wu]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:47 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:

> 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> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Xiaodi Wu <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> wrote:
>>
>>> > On Jun 29, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Vladimir.S <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.
>

Sorry, I was more suggesting that word in the context of
`public(inheritable)`, provided the default is sealed.


> John.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160630/b1a2e7e1/attachment.html>